Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[BlueDragon]

I explained it once.

And I explained to you just how faulty your explanation was, and why. Ignoring what I said won't make it all go away.

I changed to suit "you" to "them" the grammar.

The grammer? perhaps as exampled by the above use of "grammar"? It's to laugh.

In the preface (first sentence) of your last note to myself, you wrote there the Epistle was not addressed to me, giving that as one reason (among two) you gave for having changed the word "you" into a "them".

After having attempted to cut myself out of the picture (lest you cite a scripture passage that may indicate the Spirit working in me?) otherwise in your own presentation you did shift the entire sense of the scripture found in that chapter (considered in fuller context) from it being God who works in the "you" which Paul was writing to, to a "them" (inserted by substitution the word "them" into the text by your own hand) which you then indicated also were among those who should be prayed to. Whether those persons should be prayed to is a matter not contemplated (or even hinted at) in that portion of text, for it is as written there "God working in you His good pleasure" which yes, can be seen as a [them] which God was working within -- but not as you there employed it.

Though we must not hang our all on any particular isolated verses of scripture, we still must allow first what senses of meaning can be found more narrowly in them, in the contexts which they are found, holding fast to those concepts --- before otherwise reading into passages or verses, by importation of assumption and imposition, meanings not supported in those passages, particularly when to do so shifts the more fundamental meanings of the scripture passages themselves, at the same time.

Thus as I did explain, your overall efforts there, did come across as converting what otherwise could reasonably enough be seen as Paul speaking to them as to the working of the Holy Ghost within a person, even themselves (God working in them His own good pleasure) into something of a communal effort.

Which [again] you presented as supporting text for prayer to saints, with your own adroit shift of one word and focus both (in comparison to what the text could otherwise be seen to say) having also turned the concept found elsewhere in scripture "Hear Oh Israel, our God Is One" more into "Hear Oh World, Our God is a commune".

If you don't get it, I don't care any more.

I understand well enough what you seem to wish for me to "get", but the scripture you brought at that one juncture I must say --- points quite strongly the other way.

In other words, please look elsewhere for support of prayer to saints, particularly when what is being spoken of is God working within a person.

Skipping over quoting you more directly as to what you say the Holy Ghost leads the "faithful" as you put it, "to pray", I will say as warning to you, that as scripture also abundantly enough indicates, one of the short-cuts (a most direct route) to seriously angering God Almighty, is for one to say "God sayeth" a such-and-such, when God said no such things.

Speaking of grammar [again -- you did bring that aspect into discussion], the statement

Also a prayer to any saint venerates God who made His saints.

though possibly grammatical enough on it's own face (I don't otherwise ask for perfection -- if it can understand what ideas are being conveyed -- it is enough) I cannot but notice that in that sentence which you wrote; God is the one who is being "venerated", rather than a saint being "venerated", which latter is what is more usually spoken of, while otherwise in your sentence it is "any saint" who is being prayed to, rather than being spoken of as being "venerated".

I think we have found out some of the "how" as to communion of and with saints (and God) has gotten things a bit sideways... leading to confusion of identities. Which sort of blurring of identity --- was and is a major point of difference I been having with you, in more than one regard.

Do you get my drift?

I get yours

[Springfield Reformer]

the Magnificat, the constant presence of Mary during Jesus' ministry, her role in fighting the Dragon in the Revelation all are consistent with fullness of grace that drove out sin.

While I do not assume your interpretations of those things are accurate, even if I did, it would still be true that all those things are equally consistent with a sinner saved by grace. For with God, all things are possible, are they not?

we also know the nature of grace as antidote of sin

But grace has provided all of us who believe with the antidote for sin in the blood of Christ shed for our sins. So grace not only doesn't prove sinlesness, it strongly infers a prior state of sin for which the grace was needed as antidote. Even Mary in her wonderful hymn of praise to God recognizes Him as her Savior, and who needs a savior but one who needs to be saved? Which she here freely admits she does.

[Elsie]

Are you saying then that you actually believe that Catholic mass has more scripture than a protestant service?

You seem to LOVE put words into folks mouths; in a rhetorical kinda way; of course.

And then answering your own question: That’s great

[Elsie]

Oooooh

Time and half a time...

[Elsie]

I can only repeat: the prayer to a saint is addressed to the particular saint (or a group of saints) because that is how the faithful is lead by the Holy Ghost to pray. Also a prayer to any saint venerates God who made His saints.

Holy GHOST?

Are you sure you're not TAUGHT to do this by the church?

[Elsie]

Learn to behave like among the adults if you want your posts to be read and perhaps even answered.

Fret not, as we BOTH get it from the MORMONs!!

---

  "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent"

 

 (The Seer, p. 255  Orson Pratt )

[Elsie]

Learn to behave like among the adults if you want your posts to be read and perhaps even answered.

Ok; but who IS the 'whore'; according to RCC teaching?

[Elsie]

And that is the truth they could care less than zero about your critical commentary

Critical means against Catholic teaching.

[Elsie]

And that is the truth they could care less than zero about your critical commentary

That seems a bit, shall we say, arrogant.

Does this attitude come out during catechism classes, when the students SURELY question the churches teaching at times?

[daniel1212]

The context here is the state of final justification, "the reward of God [that] continueth for ever" (Ibid. 18:22), -- that is exactly the state of final, complete blessedness that Mary received with the Incarnation. I agree that simply "graced" is technically possible but it removes the poetic alliteration present in the Lucan text.

It is what this all means that is the real issue.

Of course: we don't have two Holy Spirits, one for the doctors and prelates who wrote the New Testament and another for the rest.

But you not only have the Holy Spirit aiding doctors and prelates teaching on faith and morals, but making such inspired just like Scripture is.

>Infallibility is not “on par” with divinely inspired Scripture.

Did I say it was? I said that the nature of inspiration is the same today as in 1 c. Infallibility is a smaller notion indeed: it is merely absence of error.

Well yes, since your objection , in the context of what was written as inspired Scripture, was that that prelates and doctors of the Holy Church wrote inspired teaching (which you failed to gave an example of).

And you went on to affirm "when a doctor of the Church speaks on matters of faith and morals, his words are inspired by God," and that "in the inspiration part there is no difference" btwn a doctor or prelate speaking on matters of faith and morals and that of Scripture, for if the former is "wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God." Thus that which is infallible is God-breathed as Scripture is,

But your making infallible teaching as being inspired of God is contrary to the theological teaching that defines that infallibility "merely implies exemption from liability to error," "not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible," in "which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance." "God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Are you now telling me that infallibility is merely absence of error, not inspired of God as Scripture is, though the later is different due to "its historical value of the canonical New Testament as direct witness to Christ?"

How many infallible statements would you even approx. say there are?

The entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church is infallible. Inspired, -- we don't really know as it is a stronger claim. Here is a good example: Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. The Rosary prayers, for sure. Most of the insights in the Summa. On Incarnation of St. Athanasius. Often reading the fathers of the Church you see the presence of the Holy Spirit in them, certain super human quality.

Finally some examples, but you already said such as inspired, and to deny that was contrary to the faith of the church. Where are you getting this idea that all the teaching that is expressed in the Catechism of the Church is infallible and thus divinely inspired, and such things as Leo XIII's Prayer to St. Michael. or most of the insights in the Summa?

The CE and other sources do not even make infallible papal teaching Divinely inspired, but protected, while others also hold that the teachings of the catechism are not all infallible, but only those that were est. as being so before it.

While being overall a "sure norm," Cardinal Ratzinger in his 'Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" states, "The individual doctrine which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. ( p. 27). Men as Akin thus states that "one must look to other documents and to the tradition of the Church to establish the doctrinal weight of any particular point in the Catechism." - http://jimmyakin.com/2005/02/ratzinger_on_th.html"

(And RCs also say the 1994 Catechism originally defined a lie as, "To lie is to speak or act against the truth in order to lead into error someone who has the right to know the truth." (2483) http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=728840.0)

Your description also seems to blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial levels of teaching and assent relative to such.

And esp. in the case of the such things as most of the insights in the Summa, who decides which one's are infallible versus not? Canon law 749§3 states: No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2H.HTM) And thus "only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense," which works against the broad inclusion you example.

But thus it is evident that what is "manifestly evident" is a matter of interpretation, and thus there is disagreement about what is infallible (again, some say all encyclicals [and perhaps Bulls or Fidei Depositum] are, others not). Of what use is infallibility if it is uncertain about what is? If the infallible trumpet sounds an uncertain sound, who shall prepare themselves to battle any allowance of dissent?

[Elsie]

How DARE you throw our own words back at us!!!

—Catholic_WannaBe_Dude(Come to the loving arms of Mary. Pray the Rosary...)

[Elsie]

Making it personal is rather frowned upon around here.

All the 'literate' adults know it's attempt to disguise the fact that the accuser is UNABLE to defend his point of view with evidence.

Last resort of the scoundrel, if you will.

[Elsie]

<>Some folks just thrive on bearing false witness.</I>And false guessness as well!

[af_vet_1981]

I know that, but the RC challenger is not into making distinctions, as RCs count even Unitarians and Mormons as Prots.

What else shall we call all the churches that did not originate out of the Reformation period ? They are evidently not original. Unitarians, Mormons and other pseudoChristian heretical churches are taking the rebellion to the next level. Are the Pentecostal, Holiness, Assemblies of God Protestant ? Are the Calvary Chapel churches Protestant ? If you start your own tax exempt church in a home, office, or public school building, is it Protestant ? Is Protestant only Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Presbyterian ? Can we throw in Methodist ? Whatever they are, they are not New Testament churches descended from the apostles, and that just makes me sad.

You mean having historical descent and being the stewards of Scripture means such is the assuredly infallible church, dissent from which is rebellion against God. Which premise means Rome cannot solve the problem of legitimacy, but others can.

The churches of Asia in Revelation are the answer to that question and without any doubt, every one of them was a legitimate New Testament apostolic church. Do you believe in one holy catholic apostolic church according to the Scriptures ? Was Jesus' prayer to the Father rejected ? God forbid. We know the Protestant model is not an answer to it. Where does that model lead ? Joseph Smith, the American Pioneer rebelling against all known churches and starting LDS, another gospel with an angel's help. Who could have seen that coming ?

Roman Catholicism can never be considered the original New Testament churches. It is in a stage of critical deformation that was progressive .

Then unless you hold that the Fundamentalists are correct in their doctrine of the Church, and that they are the only true New Testament churches (and it appears Westboro Baptist Church was of that persuasion), you have no unbroken chain of apostolic New Testament churches. Do you then hold that Jesus prayers for Peter and the Church failed ? God forbid. Have you considered in your heart that you could be mistaken about the Catholic Church, whatever sins history shows us ?

[Elsie]

It cannot be historically proven but solves the problem of legitimacy, which Protestants can never enjoy except as rebellious Catholics.

Works for ME!!

As well as art; I hear that the Mormons have a purty good singing group.

[Elsie]

Perhaps the Fundamentalist Baptists should be allowed to speak for themselves...

https://www.google.com/search?q=Fundamentalist+Baptists&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-ContextMenu&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475

[Elsie]

Since not all Protestant churches have cookie cutter services, it is impossible to broad brush all Protestant services as being the same.

Is too!

All 40,000 or 55,000 or whatever are NOT CAtholic!

--CWD

[Elsie]

Moral relativity, lack of critical examination of conscience, laxity in personal habits, hubris, poor moral formation all indicate the tendency toward immorality.

Nailed it!

[Elsie]

False witness? Exactly who did I witness against???

Uh...

...yourself?

[Elsie]

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

OOOooooh!

We just LOVE this verse!!

666 posted on Friday, April 11, 2014 7:28:28 AM by I may not understand everything MORMON, but, by golly, I sure BELIEVE it!)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies | Report Abuse]