Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Cronos]

Thank you -- as you correctly said, Christ did not inherit original sin (Iscool: take down notes)

And, yet, you say that His Mother was "in the curse", right?

And, you did say "Physical death is the consequence of original sin.". We have one instance where this statement is incorrect.

Finally, you misread John 10 --> Christ did not take His own life. He lay it down Himself, but we killed Him, He did not kill Himself. He died a Physical death (not a spiritual one too as the WOF Pentecostals say)

[Cronos]

of course, since the ones outside The Church have a tendency to excerpt, they forget the “or other group “ —> you should read things in it’s entirety, not as an excerpt. This is a good precept for any reading, but most especially for scripture — so give up the silly sola scriptura, sola excerptura and read in context and in entirety. It’ll be good for you if and when you wish to become a follower of Christ.

[Natural Law]

"I am certain you have seen some Protestants who argue that the Catholic Church has downgraded Scripture to no less than an "equal" status with man made doctrine."

If it is acceptable to dismiss significant portions of the Revealed Word of God, would you agree that it is therefore also possible to dismiss significant portions of Scripture? For example would you consider that the Gospels alone are sufficient or even that the Beatitudes alone are sufficient since Christ clearly presented Salvation in a number of "if / then" statements?

[Cronos]

"Clearly, if he did not have a 'sin nature', He was not "tempted in every way, just as we are". " --> a very good point that I did not notice. The marvellous thing about Christ was that He was one of us -- a human being, completely, utterly, with all our failings and with all our temptations. Yet, He was not one of us -- a complete conundrum.

Christ was born like one of us, yet was sinless. He became sin and died a physical death. It's a wonder of God.

[Cronos]

And yet, don't you understand that by saying the mother (the bearer) of the Incarnate Word, you neglect to say that she also bore Christ, God, because Christ was the incarnate man and also the Creator God.

Oversimplification can and has led to severe errors.

[Quix]

AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!

THX THX.

[Cronos]

And yet, don't you understand that by saying the mother (the bearer) of the Incarnate Word, you neglect to say that she also bore Christ, God, because Christ was the incarnate man and also the Creator God.

Oversimplification can and has led to severe errors in this doctrine throughout history -- or rather it did for the first three centuries, then stopped with the Nicene creed and resurfaced 1200 years later when The Church had neglected it's duties to keep teaching the Germanics

[Quix]

Seventh-Day Adventists, “Benny Hinn Presbyterians” and Word-of-Faithers forming new Calvinist groups? That says all I need to know about the state of Catholic education.

---

GUFFAWS OVER THE TOP.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!

[Mad Dawg]

The problem with the wholesale and enthusiastic condemnation of almost everything we do or say is that it is rarely specific enough for anyone to respond.

I really think a lot of the responses you get are due to (bearing in mind all the usual apologies for my projections, etc.) the way when we Cat'licks read your posts, we only know we've been clobbered, but we're not sure where or why. So all we can respond to is the general clobbering, but not to any particular assertion.

I don't even know, sometimes, if you are quoting something with approval or disapproval. For example, you gave us this:

Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, ...

Do you like this or not -- and in either case, why? I think it's fine.

One of our titles for Jesus is "Pantocrator" which essentially means all-powerful or all-ruler ('crator' as in aristocrat), but I don't know any serious theologian who thinks that The Entire Trinity was in Jesus, rather than "God the Son of God."

[Mad Dawg]

Don't make me tell the (not very funny, but Dr Reginald Fuller told it, which was hysterical in itself -- the guy COULD NOT tell a joke) joke about the wise and foolish virgins.

No. Perhaps that works internally, but the big "conflicts" have not been resolved... At least not since the sword has been taken away from her. Her two biggest schisms remain apart. And rightly so. So I cannot accept that statement as accurate.

I think you want to be careful. The Papacy had the sword only in limited areas, the Papal States. And she GOT such sword as she had at the request of the Byzantine emperor who saw Italy in chaos -- where it has pretty much stayed ever since. The Papacy actually delayed the sack of Rome, don't forget. These were very tough times.

There's a great bunch of holy people (as much as one can use the term as such) who will *never* be in the Roman church *at all*. And that's O.K.

I don't find the term "separated brethren" to be any step forward.

Two sentences giveth but the last one taketh away. It's a serious advance. If were going to obsess about the Tridentine anathemas, it has the effect of reducing their range or scope. Yes non-Catholics (except for "Orthodox" under certain circumstances) are 'functionally' excommunicated (except in moments of emergent stress), but it's more about regret than condemnation and is accompanied by offers of blessings and prayers for reconciliation.

I think it's a great advance to go from "Wow, most of them, deprived of many means of grace and in active resistance to unity as they are, are in deep spiritual peril" to "Wow! Looky there! Grace and sanctity!"

(Sorry, jumping around. Stealing this time from what I should be doing.)

You say, about claiming scriptural warrant for authority, that the "Scribes and the Pharisees" laid claim to it.

Now, FWIW, we claim John 20:21 and other texts. Did the scribes and the Pharisees have a similar explicit text which could be construed as granting them (burdening them with) the kind of authority that the (soi-disant -- see how dialectical I'm being?) successors to the Apostles claim?

If so, it's news to me.

I think cannibalism has shown a marked decline. That's not such a bad fruit.

Ooh, look! A shiny, new "We don't eat people" badge! That'll look good on the uniform! ; )

It's part of Michelle's nutrition initiative.

I think that much of the sort of unspoken 'ground' of the mugging of Catholics is predicated on a misunderstanding of the political and moral chaos of the time. I recently inflicted on myself some National Geographic show about Mayan documents which blamed"the Inquisition" for destroying a lot of Mayan Documents. That is just plain ignorant.

Now I think it's a shame that the documents are destroyed. But I didn't see the piles of victims of human sacrifice, the temples built for the purpose of ritualizing the tearing out of the hearts of living prisoners. I didn't see the baby farms where humans were fattened for slaughter like livestock.

So it's easy for my academic interests to override my refined horror. I once came across a living man who had just eaten his gun. That memory will not go away. I can imagine how the soul-searing sight of piles of human sacrificial victims might incline one to the burning of documents ...

"He jests at scars that never felt a wound." It's easy for us who have not had family members murdered before our eyes in the streets of Italy to scoff at the sometimes spastic efforts to restore some kind of order in the middle ages.

Okay. I'm incoherent. Maybe I can make up for it this PM. Gotta pretend to some kind of usefulness.

[prot]

"The marvelous thing about Christ was that He was one of us -- a human being, completely, utterly, with all our failings and with all our temptations. Yet, He was not one of us -- a complete conundrum."

He is God and man, fully both at the same time yet able to manifest each separately.

Much like wave-particle duality.

[smvoice]

Cripes! You're post is making me think about this..bear with me and let me see if this is what you're saying..

Tradition is what is added to the law by men. The Law was given by God through Moses and to Israel. Tradition was added by men to the Law, thus making tradition part of the spoken and unspoken Law of God. Christ came to fulfill the Law, not tradition. Therefore, Christ stood in defiance of Tradition. Because it came from men, not God. Therefore, He did not sin. How could he sin? The breaking of the Law from God to Moses is sin. The breaking of tradition, given by men, is not the breaking of the Law.

Does this make sense?

[Quix]

Over my 63 years, it has always meant God The Father.

I can’t imagine what I’d have said otherwise but who knows what fool thing I say in the midst of the heat of things sometimes.

Sometimes I get all conciliatory and try and say what I can, with clear conscience say, IN THE DIRECTION of what the other person is saying.

Alamo-Girl’s exposition is quite clear. However, I confess, I’d never gone down some of those trails before.

A LOT of Christ’s unity with THE FATHER has been shrouded in mystery, to me. I know that by HIM all things were created.

I also know that all Heavenly visitation depictions of THE FATHER and THE CHRIST are quite distinct—though sometimes there’s dramatic manifestations of their incredible unity.

Not sure what to add. Sorry for any confusion. Contrary to some sensibilities, confusion is NOT my goal.

[Natural Law]

"Seventh-Day Adventists, "Benny Hinn Presbyterians" and Word-of-Faithers forming new Calvinist groups?"

Because 33,000 denominations did not evolve from earlier schisms, the spontaneously generated....LOL.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply, dear brother in Christ!

For me, the title "Mother of God" requires more explanation than "Mother of the Incarnate Word" and therefore I would say the former is more over-simplified than the latter.

Nevertheless, and no matter what titles we may use for faithful Christians, the Names of God must be hallowed.

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 12:3-4

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

[stfassisi]

“”How can the New Covenant cover them at that time when it had not happened yet?””

By believing the OT foreshadows and represents the coming Christ

Those who accepted the foreshadowing of Christ before Christ in the OT are covered by Christ and are “the people of God.” Scripture says no Salvation without Christ(Acts 4:11-12) thus,some people of the OT are covered

Acts 4:11-12 says....This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner. [12] Neither is there salvation in any other”. The typology from the OT is ....“The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone. This was the LORD’s doing; it is marvelous in our eyes.” (Psalm 118:22-23)

Here is a good article from Association of Hebrew Catholics
The Church - Prepared for in the Old Covenant
http://hebrewcatholic.org/FaithandTheology/On-People-Israel/churchpreparedin.html

[Quix]

Understand.

I can try and prefece some of my sentence frags with a clue as to whether I support them or not! LOL.

Sorry about the lack of clarity.

[Quix]

SURE DOES TO ME.

THX.

[Quix]

For me, the title “Mother of God” requires more explanation than “Mother of the Incarnate Word” and therefore I would say the former is more over-simplified than the latter.

Nevertheless, and no matter what titles we may use for faithful Christians, the Names of God must be hallowed.

And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. - Deuteronomy 12:3-4

To God be the glory, not man, never man.

==

ABSOLUTELY INDEED!