Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Quix]

THANKS FOR YOUR KIND REPLY.

It seems only logical therefore . . . HIS DIVINITY HAVING NO MOTHER . . .

that once his earthly container was done, the earthly motherhood of that fleshly earthly container was done, too.

However, the VATICAN INSTITUTION cannot tolerate that truth because too huge a percentage of it's key structures would tumble down, if it did. Ditto for so many individual RC's. The collapse of their whole dogmatic system is toooo frightful to contemplate--regardless of whether God is involved with it, or not.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights and encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

Truly, I love meditating on the Names of God and sharing some of those meditations was my intent. I was not trying to answer the question directly.

Obviously, Mary is a creature. She is not the mother of the Creator, though the Creator became enfleshed in her body and physically entered the world with the Name Jesus.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all [things] he might have the preeminence.

For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.– Colossians 1:15-20

Calling her "Mother of the Creator" would be just as confusing as "Mother of God" for the same reason.

If she must have a title, I prefer "Mother of the Incarnate Word" because it requires no footnotes.

God's Name is I AM.

[the_conscience]

IF THE TARGETED GOAL WAS NOT SUCH A HUGE DEAL, the Vatican would have long ago said something like... THEY HAVEN'T AND THEY WON'T BECAUSE THE ULTERIOR MOTIVE IS TOO HIGH A PRIORITY.

I believe that as well. As merely a logical conclusion from the premises of Christian doctrine, Mary the mother of God, is a valid conclusion. It's the implicit assumption of "goddess" that wafts through Romanists theology that makes it an invalid conclusion.

[D-fendr]

Thanks for your reply. I may continue later, it may be that we just disagree.

I didn’t mean to slight Augustine but to juxtapose the doctors least like the scholastics as a balance to St. Thomas.

I think the view of God between Calvinism and Lutheranism is at least an order of magnitude greater than the differences between the East and West in Catholicism.

Theology unavoidably involves reason, we are both using reason here to prove the validity of our theology. Any use of reason in theology to discount the use of reason in theology contradicts itself.

In Catholicism, particularly in Pope Benedict’s appeals, reason and faith are not opposed. Our God transcends reason, does not contradict reason. What we fight together today is the false choice of reason or faith - the false choice of science or faith, reason or superstition. This is the challenge for the Church in the modern world.

Reason have their proper place in knowledge. This is the subject of Pope John Paul II’s “Faith and Reason.” I don’t expect you to read, I’m merely telling you its context.

Pope Benedict, as I mentioned earlier, emphasizes the combined value of scholasticism and monasticism, which I believe contradicts your assertion of reason as elevated or Acquinas as the default today.

FInally, a personal request: “Romanist” sounds like an attempt to denigrate my Church. It also can make Catholics resist your arguments just to resist, so it lessens effectiveness. I’ll do my best to not denigrate your church. Hopefully I get better with practice.

I don’t mean I won’t passionately disagree, but I promise to try not to be disagreeable when doing so. You can slap me if I do.

I appreciate your discussion very much.

[Quix]

I agree.

Thx much.

[Quix]

Plenty true.

thx for your kind reply.

[Deo volente]

Ah, the beautiful simplicity of logic!

I notice there have been no replies so far. No surprise.

[the_conscience]

Thanks again,

A few short responses.

As to the view of God between Lutherans and the Reformed, I would be interested to know how you think they differ so significantly. I find the platonic God of the East where man must climb the chain of being and the split-level reconstruction of Aquinas to be a significant reorientation.

I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll read JPII if you read Cornelius Van Til.

As to the term Romanists: I use the term because it’s a nice shorthand for Roman Catholic Church. I’m pretty conservative so I’m not into political correctness or politically correct speech. I also use it as a ministry tool to Romanists to make clear to those of that church that I consider their church as merely another denomination within Christdom. I don’t want to lead those congregants into the false belief that I accept their own false designation of their denomination.

[Deo volente]

I see that your question has already been answered here, so I won't try to repeat what these other posters have said.

Let me just say that some of the Jews listening to Jesus misunderstood Him and argued among themselves, “How could this man give us his flesh to eat?”.
Several of Jesus’ disciples also found His words “hard to accept” and left Him at that point. Peter and the other apostles stayed, because they believed in the Lord's promises. He fulfilled His promise at the Last Supper, the night before he died. What was begun there on Thursday was completed on Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

The Jews thought Jesus was talking about some form of cannibalism. They were so very wrong. Read up a little more on the Catholic teaching and you'll be amazed at the power and goodness of Almighty God, Who can do such things as give us His Body and Blood through the ages. It's no problem at all for God. The problem is with us and our lack of faith and trust that God does what He says He will do. Always.

[D-fendr]

I don’t want to lead those congregants into the false belief that I accept their own false designation of their denomination.

You remind me of a story. I used to advise politicians on media and elections. One was attempting to become the first Republican representative in history in the district. He was doing a commercial once that referred to his opponent. He wanted to say "Democrat Party" instead of what was written: "Democratic Party".

I told him to say "Democratic" because the other would be seen as an insult to them. He asked me, "Why do we care?" I answered: "Because you need their votes."

People reflexively defend when attacked. Don't start out with an attack and you might find your audience more receptive to listening to you.

[Deo volente]

Why is it necessary to always respond here with a cheap, incoherent mishmash of words, epithets, and slurs, “jazzed up” in color fonts and giant letters arranged every which way?

Don't you have anything constructive to add to the conversation? I guess not.

[D-fendr]

I would be interested to know how you think they differ so significantly.

Double predestination is a radical change in the view of God and Jesus call to repentance, free will, etc. etc.

I find the platonic God of the East where man must climb the chain of being and the split-level reconstruction of Aquinas to be a significant reorientation.

99% of Catholic theology was developed before Aquinas was born. East and Western Churches were identical for a thousand years. I've studied both East and West together and apart and been to Mass in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, equally comfortable in both. I use what you might call Eastern Orthodox sources for theology more than I do Western, because the Church grew from East to West, and that theology which would be solely Western doesn't include the primary theology of the Church. All the key early councils of the Church were East/West inclusive.

The differences between East and West are primarily rooted in language and culture not basic theology - who man is, who Christ is, who God is, what salvation is, etc. And once you look at the other side of learning to be Christian, praxis, the differences almost totally disappear.

Post a link to something by Cornelius Van Til?

Thanks for your reply.

[Quix]

If I explained it to you, so you could understand,

I’d probably have to call you a Proddy. I suspect that would be intolerable. So I won’t bother. LOL.

[Quix]

The integrity of that last post was supremely underwhelming.

leaving off as it did . . . :

10. Some Pentecostal Holiness/Oneness folks
11. Actually probably all the Eric Hoffer TRUE BELIEVER types in whatever group.

I’m a Pentecostal. My close relatives are Pentecostal Holiness/Oneness folks.

This is an open thread. Perhaps the local taxidermist can offer a thicker hide.

A CALL FOR DONATIONS:

NEEDED . . . A SHIPPING CONTAINER FULL OF CLUES. There’s a desperate famine of clues in major areas of the RC territory hereon.

[Quix]

REALITY CHECK QUESTION:

1. At what age do you recall or would you guess you were when you began to realize that

the capacity of other folks
satan and his forces,
close relatives and friends
enemies at work and play
folks and things in the media

to PERSONALLY GET YOUR GOAT . . .

i.e. not about some important moral principle per se . . .

BUT PERSONALLY HOOK YOUR EGO, INSECURITIES, PRIDE, ARROGANCE, STATUS CONSCIOUSNESS, SMUGNESS, PERSONAL COMFORT ZONE ETC.

HOW OLD WERE YOU WHEN YOU BEGAN TO REALIZE that such an upset was

A HUGE INDICATION
THAT YOU HAD SOME
MISPLACED PRIORITIES/AND/OR AFFECTIONS
IF NOT SOME IDOLATRIES?

If you disagree that the above is true, please say so.

MYSELF . . . I realized it to some degree as a teen. More layers of blindness were pulled off in the Navy. Still more when I got married. More when I got divorced. By the time I got to China, I think I knew that full well and deep in my bone marrow. That would have been at about 40 years of age.

[Quix]

1. Given that undersstanding the RM’s clear explanation of the rules seems to be a serious comprehension problem, I can’t begin to guess what the remedy might be.

2. AS I started out that post, as I often do—thinking out loud through my fingers . . . I initially thought I’d have a hard time thinking of a single similar example of any group of people that would demonstrate such a wholesale lack of insight-—SOOOO CHARACTERISTIC OF SOOOOO MANY RC’S HEREON (NOT 100%). A “LACK OF INSIGHT.”

3. Certainly A LACK OF INSIGHT is a pretty grossly serious problem. However, it’s not equal to priests buggering altar boys.

4. Perhaps those words are not in the Vatican daffynitionary but I’m sure they are available at

http://www.m-c.com

5. However, before I’d gotten too far, the psychologist part of me rose up and said—you silly rabbit—you know several groups/classifications that’s true for . . .

6. And then before I was done, I’d had to include some Pentecostals and then some sorts of folks in all RELIGIOUS groups. I could have added . . . all political groups.

7. Now, if the shoe fits, I encourage folks to wear it. Learning and growth occurs better, then.

8. If the shoe doesn’t fit, there’s no occasion for upset.

9. I’ve learned that the degree of upset tends to correlate pretty closely with the degree of idolatry, arrogance, insecurity, puffery, lack of insight, hypocrisy, rigidity, narrowness, willful blindness . . . etc.

10. Those can be pretty crucial things to see in one’s mirror—particularly in terms of spiritual priorities.

11. That’s OK. This group session is free.

[Quix]

You're basically calling each one of us here a PSYCHO.

NOPE! Not by a wide margin. I don't think any RC's REALLY want me to go there. In terms of the rabid clique sorts, that MIGHT be quite doable. The gap between SERIOUS REACTIVE ATTACHMENT DISORDER [my background, too] and some serious problems is not a huge one in many cases. Please don't tempt me to launch into pontificating about THOSE issues and evidences! LOL.

BTW, that's mind-reading hereon . . . and thereby considered rather personal.

[Deo volente]

What a condescending pile of garbage.

INDEED.