The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[SoothingDave]

Did you get the impression that Kevin Smith was making fun of the "we must follow the 'spirit' of Vatican II, forget what the actual documents say" type of Catholics with his "Catholicism WOW!" plot device?

That is the way I took it and found it(the whole buddy Christ thing) quite funny for it shows, by absurdity, just how ridiculous those people are.

That's the way I took it. You can actually buy small statues of "Buddy Christ" from the viewaskew website. I should see if I can link a picture from over there. It's quite comical.

On a related note, did any other Catholic in here delight in the misery and gnashing of teeth that the people at the National Catholic Reporter(you know, the heretical one) and the rest of the usual suspects displayed over Liturgiam Authenticam a few months back?

If those jackasses don't like it then you can bet the farm that it is good for the Church.

You don't actually read such drivel, do you? I'm assuming you read their comments in some proper Catholic media, like the Wanderer. What remains to be seen is how the Bishops deal with LA in their annual meeting coming up. If there is a lot of opposition they can just "study" it to death like they have with ex corde ecclesia (supposed to have the local Bishop approve of theologians teaching at Catholic colleges.)

The document itself is a big victory for the "good guys," but we may have to fight to get our bishops to implement it.

SD

453 posted on 10/16/01 9:43 PM Eastern by dignan3

[SoothingDave]

Why is that when you ask RC's what religion they are most answer: "Catholic", but non-catholics answer: "Christian". And they keep insisting to us they are Christians (and I'm not implying that they aren't). Then why don't they answer "Christian"?

Um, maybe to be helpful?

I don't think most "non-Catholics" would answer "Christian," but rather "Lutheran," "Methodist," "Baptist," etc.

Oh, and by the way, the "Christian" part is understood by most. We could say "Catholic Christian" or "Lutheran Christian" or "Presbyterian Christian" but it is awfully pedantic to most.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Or as that dummy St. Augustine says; "rocky".

You know you keep saying this and I'm going to have to call you on it.

As far as I know Augustine didn't speak English, at least modern English, and had no familiarity with post-modern American culture.

So whence are you deriving this name?

SD

[al_c]

Hi, Mom! Glad you could join us. Is your bump list open to ALL Christians or just Protestants?

------------------

And good morning to everyone else, too. Here's your daily dose of scripture & meditation ...

Wednesday, October 17, 2001
Saint Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr - Memorial

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Romans 2:1-11 or Philippians 3:17 & 4:1 Psalms 62:2-3, 6-7, 9 Luke 11:42-46 or John 12:24-26 I greet you from Smyrna together with the Churches of God present here with me. They comfort me in every way, both in body and soul. My chains, which I carry about on me for Jesus Christ, begging that I may happily make my way to God, exhort you: persevere in your concord and in you community prayers.   -- St. Ignatius of Antioch

From wau.org ...

In contrast to many of his other letters, Paul was not trying to correct a heresy or help resolve a scandal when he wrote his Letter to the Romans. He had quite another goal in mind: to introduce himself and his teaching to them in preparation for a visit he wanted to make.

Paul was not yet personally acquainted with this church, but he was informed enough to know what to say. For example, he was aware that its Jewish members, greatly outnumbered by non-Jews, probably felt threatened or slighted. Because tension between the two groups was likely, he made it a point to emphasize up front that God's word applies to everyone. No one who does evil--neither Jew nor Gentile--will escape God's judgment. No one who does good--neither Jew nor Gentile--will fail to receive an appropriate reward. "God shows no partiality" (Romans 2:11).

Like the Christians in Rome, we can take comfort in knowing that God doesn't play favorites. Each of us needs mercy. Each of us is offered it by a loving Father who is rich in "kindness and forbearance and patience" (2:4). Equally committed to all his sons and daughters, God holds out the hope and promise of salvation to all of us.

Besides bringing us hope for ourselves, knowing that God's love is impartial and generous should spur us to change our thinking about others. Are there people we have written off as unlikely candidates for conversion? God hasn't written them off. He calls them too, however sinful they may seem. He stands always ready to pour out his grace when they respond--and so abundantly, in fact, that their holiness may one day astonish us!

Jesus has hope for everyone, and he wants to put that same hope into our hearts. He wants us to reject any anxiety we might have about someone's spiritual state. He wants us to put away any sense of superiority we might have about our own state. Instead, he wants us all to pray with confidence in God's ability to accomplish his plan. Let's ask Jesus to help us see all our brothers and sisters as he sees them. Let's know that everyone can become a saint!

"Lord Jesus, touch everyone with your gospel! Surpass my expectations of how you can work. Turn even the most desperate situations upside down with your grace and mercy!"

------------------

Have a great day, everybody!

[SoothingDave]

You are reminding me of one of the Disciples. None was snatched from his hand; but, one...

Real nice. You see there's a difference between you and I. I think you have delusions of grandeur. You think we are deliberately all Judases.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Say it again, louder! Hey everybody, guess what day it is?

It's St. Ignatius day!

SD

[al_c]

Say it again, louder! Hey everybody, guess what day it is?

You want louder?

It's St. Ignatius day!

How's that?

[SoothingDave]

How about all of the men throughout history that safeguarded our Scriptures from relevant error? God worked through these fallible, sinful men (mostly Catholics) in an infallible way.

I don't think these men had a clue what they were doing, and certainly never expected the scripture to be used against them. They knew they had the scripture locked up, and no one could touch it with out their permission, so they felt safe enough to be honest with the findings because they couldn't picture a day when they would have to share them with the world outside of the RCC.

It is obvious they were making laws that were directly against the scripture they had in their hands, but they did what they wanted to do anyway.

And here we are, back to the "all Catholics are conniving, lying, murdering bastards."

When they were keeping the Bible alive through transcribing it, and the writings of the Classical world through the dark ages, those Irish monks had no idea what they were doing!

And if they knew that people might actually read the Bible some day they would have never done it!

And they knew that what they were doing was anti-Scriptural but didn't care.

Hey, Jim, I have anews flash for ya! Catholics don't believe they are countering Scripture. We don't interpret Scripture in the same, often simplistic, way you do. Sorry. I know it's hard to understand, but when you sttart from the assumption that Catholics know they are doing something wrong and don't care that is no way to convince anybody of anything.

Try for a minute to pretend that Catholics actually believe what they say. I know it's hard.

SD

[SoothingDave]

You know, if they moved St. Ignatius Day to the last saturday in October and we had some folks who didn't observe daylight savings time, then we could argue about whether the "long version" or "short version" of St Ignatius day was valid.

SD

[JohnnyM]

"We could say "Catholic Christian" or "Lutheran Christian" or "Presbyterian Christian" but it is awfully pedantic to most."

Why don't you just say Christian? I see multi-culturalism has hit the religious scene. Just like people calling themselves African-Americans, latino-Americans, and asian-americans, as a way to distance themselves from America, we now have religious people doing this by hyphenating Christianity. Catholic-Christians, Baptist-Christians, and so forth. It really is a sad day when man comes before Christ.

JM

[SoothingDave]

Our differences are not salvation matters, they are personal preference matters, that have everything to do with personality, and nothing to do with salvation.

You know, Jim, I gave out the Sentence of the Day early yesterday and I probably shouldn't have. You get at least a share in the title for this one.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

The story is that the men did not get along and even in Rome they might not move in the same circles.

This "story" is covering old ground. I'll ask essentially the same question I have asked previously. What matter is it whether they "got along" or not? Can you imagine any Apostle ignoring the "Pope" as if he didn't even exist?

[SoothingDave]

In other words:
"eats My flesh" = "comes to Me" (result: shall not hunger, i.e., "have eternal life")

"drinks My blood" = "believes in Me" (result: shall not thirst, i.e., "have eternal life")

Talk about the Great Communicator; that was Jesus!!

Excuse me? Did you say "Great Communicator"? If what you posit as the "true" interpretation of John 6 were actually true, it would make Jesus a horrible communicator. All Catholic and Orthodox churches in existence alone for the first 1500 years of Christianity seem to have totally missed Jesus' point. A "great communicator" does not leave billions of people flailing in the dark.

You do have a point, but you stop at the symbolism and never follow through. Yes, "coming" to Jesus and "believing" in Jesus are required. Sacraments are not magic spells that work regardless of the person involved. So everything you say is true.

We just believe more. Yes, we need to believe in Him, AND we need to eat His Flesh and drink His Blood. Because they are "real" food.

SD

[IMRight]

The NT, anyway

Actually, the OT too. The Jews didn't get around to an "official" list of books until well after the time of Christ (The library at Alexandria maybe?).

[al_c]

When asked what religion I am, I always start with "Christian." Then the person asking the question usually says something like, "No ... what religion?" So, you see, we end up saying Catholic anyway, so why not just go ahead and say it to start with?

[SoothingDave]

First Conservative wrote: ALL early Christians and Nazarenes were (cover your ears, Soothing Dave, :) - BAPTISTS!!! Your Catholic(sic) sect did not begin until about 250 A.D.

Perhaps they would understand if you defined "baptist" for them!!

Perhaps we would believe it if there were any evidence for it. Exact terms don't really matter when we are discussing a fictional group of people.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Actually, the OT too. The Jews didn't get around to an "official" list of books until well after the time of Christ (The library at Alexandria maybe?).

Sure. They canonized the OT, but we can't say members of the Church wrote any of it. That was the distinction I was trying to make. Thanks for the clarifying opportunity.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Why don't you just say Christian? I see multi-culturalism has hit the religious scene. Just like people calling themselves African-Americans, latino-Americans, and asian-americans, as a way to distance themselves from America, we now have religious people doing this by hyphenating Christianity. Catholic-Christians, Baptist-Christians, and so forth. It really is a sad day when man comes before Christ.

I'm sure if I was in a non-Christian environment that would be my first answer.

Here in America people are usually more interested in knowing what type of Christian one is than they are in lifting themselves above the rest and trying to claim the title "Christian" for their very own as if no one else hadn't claimed it first.

SD

[OLD REGGIE]

Thank you no, that is not how one should read the Bible. You can't break it down, and you can't interpret it your self.

This statement says it all. You are admitting, just as the RCC says, that the Catholic layperson is not qualified to interpret the Bible. Why then do you even bother to read it at all?