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

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[LurkingSince'98]

would you?

AMDG

[mdmathis6]

The righteous laity need to rise up and insist on another Canon...the right to rise up and immediately put out of the church any of the leadership who have defamed Christianity by behavior, expressed political thought, or heretical discourse as proscribed by the scriptures, those scriptures as collected declared as Holy by the early church fathers. These canon you cite use “collective” language but God will judge each soul individually, not collectively.

Each stone in Solomon’s temple was fitted without the use of cutting instruments...each stone was unique, there was no collective uniformity. There’ll be no “blaming the leadership” on the count of individual Catholics who fail to work against the evil in their leadership. You Catholic folks want to “call” those of us who are not Catholic...home...when your Home is in a shambles.

[Kackikat]

I guess any exposure to unknown beliefs including the arguing that ensues, it could be very disturbing on many levels, even if it were aliens.

I never understood the Bitcoin phenomena, it’s spiraling upward and then down for reasons I wouldn’t consider worthwhile for investment. Last time I heard the Bitcoins weren’t worth much, but I don’t keep up with fads.

Thanks for the chuckle.

[LurkingSince'98]

“Please provide a verifiable transcript of what was actually said. That’s what you’re expecting Protestants to provide. Will you be providing it yourself?”

I plan to make a recording and have it transcribed and annotated chapter and verse.

and what are you going to do Alex, I haven’t heard any of the Calvinistas offering up a $$$

For the Greater Glory of God

[BlueDragon]

Right. That is because my quote was about the saints and not about you.

No --- there was no "quote" from some other person here, which you could make 'adjustment' to while being dismissive, amid all the rest of the habitual mischaracterization of conversations.

It was scripture itself you were monkeying around with that time, changing a single word to better suit your own premise.

All Pauline letters are addressed to some concrete set of recipients.

Yes, as I made some effort to point out to you in the note to which you gave reply. Yet still -- you changed scripture to not only just cut myself out of the picture, but to better suit your own preconceptions.

You don't get to do that.

We in the Catholic Church believe that the letters nevertheless are to be taken as an instruction to all of us, who are called to be saints.

It is widely taken for granted that the messages and theology as those are explained, demonstrated, and further discussed, are meant for all of us -- with the "us" I speak of here being those of the Gentile nations whom He also calls to Himself, in addition to the Hebrews.

I am familiar with the concept. It is as natural as breathing...

From Philippians 2:9-15, for example, we learn that sainthood is worked out in fear and trembling and with God's help.

As it is written, again the same passage which you initially cited;

13 for God it is who is working in you both to will and to work for His good pleasure. [underlining for emphasis added]

which in changing one word --- and by importing reasoning from who-knows what sources (those being difficult to track down as to when & where precisely the changes of application of such concepts as communion of the saints entered the picture as compared to as those can be found traces of in historical record in regards to the primitive church) you have made the Holy Spirit into being a communal effort.

It is (as scripture indicates) the Spirit of the Lord who (as Young's translation worded it)

for God it is who is working in you

It does not say working in a [them] which we then should pray to for guidance...

As to the working of the Holy Spirit within a person;
is it now "Mary" and those perceived to be "the saints" as you would seem to either have it or prefer it, who is now "God working in [those the letter was addressed to]" -- with that question posed to be considered narrowly, as to what Paul wrote to the Philippians, for as has been well enough established (and we would likely find agreement towards) it must first be established who was speaking what, to whom, in what setting, in order to gain clearest sense of the texts.

I suggest that Paul was not speaking of the spirits of saints working in one another, but that Paul was speaking of the Holy Spirit when he wrote "God working in you...".

As you continued, citing a portion of 2 Corinthian 3:18 (not knowing the translation which you used, I will need here chose one);

18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

with your own presentation of the same passage having coming after yourself having said;

My conclusion, from the text, was that therefore when we venerate a saint we also worship God that made them so.

Venerate? Since when did "venerate" include asking for advice from one saint or another considered to now be IN HEAVEN (I do hope they are all there or shall be) as named distinctively, other than God the Father (who is in heaven)".

But we are getting warmer as to the theological differences between; what is spoken of in the scripture passages which you cite, and what we were otherwise speaking of in regards to praying towards those other than God, with your having previously said "Of course when I pray to Mary or to any other saint I pray to that particular saint, -- for his/her intercession, or advice, etc"

If it be so, if it be truly proper to worship God by way of venerating those perceived to be saints, the question also unavoidably arises as to --- just who it is who is being worshiped.

May I suggest that when venerating those whom have come before us (in regards to the Kingdom of God) it be much more theologically sound; that when we pray while also venerating these who have passed on from this realm to the next, we limit ourselves to prayer concerning them to be more as prayers of thanksgiving for those notable persons who have once been living among us on this earth, while if otherwise also seeking guidance from He who as Paul wrote "works within [us] ...for His good pleasure" we by all means should, as scripture abundantly indicates, pray directly towards the singular Creator of the heavens and the earth?

I pose that question to you not in seeking answer in form of instruction from you to myself, but as to points of theological discussion.

Otherwise, if we pray to saints, seeking from them the things of God, even by His own Spirit, if those same saints be now in some manner as one with Him, if those saints now yet further be Him to extent that venerating one (a saint) be worshiping another --even God Himself (for you did just say that when venerating saints you also worship God who made them so) -- then they (the saints prayed to) have lost their own personal identities, or else one is worshiping or at least praying to something identifiably other than God while as you put it --- "venerating" the saints.

If they be as one, and praying to a saint be likened to praying to God (or some particular aspect of Godliness emulated or personified by singularly identifiable "saint") I say again, the saints lose their own identities.

This fluid change of identification of persons and principles by way of substitution, if but by way of subtle blending of identities when not blatant and out-right "change", is exemplified by the very 'adjustment' which you subjected Philippians 2:13 to in the first place, hence my own objections towards that type of action --- oh ye Great Rabbi.

[Alex Murphy]

I plan to make a recording and have it transcribed and annotated chapter and verse. and what are you going to do Alex

I'm not going to be doing anything, except imagining Jim Robinson's reaction when he opens your promised transcript. Are you going to have it notarized, too?

[mdmathis6]

“It’s better to not read the Bible but to implicitly believe it than to read it and not believe it”

Interesting statement. I’ve seen over the years, new babes in Christ having the experience of coming to personally astounding conclusions about their new born faith but being unsure about whether these inborn truths should be heeded...until they were shown in the scripture that yes they were on solid ground all the while, and that they should continue in their scriptures to grow in faith. It is a living testament to the work of the Holy Spirit, already having begun writing God’s word on their hearts. The Bible merely shows them where they are already on track, and the pitfalls to avoid.

[LurkingSince'98]

when you mention JR in a post shod you also include him in the TO?

AMDG

[Alex Murphy]

when you mention JR in a post shod you also include him in the TO?

Try reading my post #893 again.

[Gamecock]

when you mention JR in a post shod you also include him in the TO?

Plank. Eye.

[LurkingSince'98]

read it again and still a waste of my time - like Jim I’m at work

Bye.

[LurkingSince'98]

Plank. Eye.

Plank Bye

[Alex Murphy]

I haven’t heard any of the Calvinistas offering up a $$$

We took up a collection and bought you a card.

[Elsie]

OK so you do think a Catholic Mass has more Scripture than a protestant service - now we are getting somewhere.P>Do you bite your tail when you finally catch it?

[Elsie]

I didn’t think you would be cynical... I guess I had you figured wrong.

Checking up on folks is considered to be CYNICAL in your world?

Do tell!

[Elsie]

I guess I had you figured wrong.

Been tellin' you that; but you will not listen.

[Elsie]

do you really sit in moms basement and ‘spout’??

Do your OWN research.

[Elsie]

first, hearsay is a statement that a person of unknown provenance made regarding what another person said or did

It ain't quite fractal; but, yet again, you are wrong.

Mother Theresa herself could have told you something; but when you repeat it to another; it's hearsay.

---

Strange that a fellow who knows what a WAGER is, fails to admit knowing what HEARSAY is.

---

(Faulty catechism perhaps?)

[Elsie]

second, the folks relaying this were not strangers, they were trusted friends, they had never been known to make a false utterance, they made the statement as a form of testimony of their protestant faith, which I believe to be exemplary and strong.

Doesn't matter: it's STILL hearsay when YOU repeat it to others.

[Elsie]

sixth, remember I want Jim to compare what happens in ONE particular Catholic Mass in our little corner of nowhere to ANY protestant service anywhere in the US.

Maybe he don't wanna play with your TarBaby.