"Me 'n my RC. What's good enough for other folks ain't good enough for me!"
But I've never baptised with it.
First time for everything, I guess.
:>)
Posted on 08/25/2006 12:39:24 AM PDT by Gamecock
Excellent!!!
In fact, all you need to do is read the posts from several of your protestant brethren from this thread and you'll easily see a little Jack Chick in each of them.
Now if I were familiar with Jack Chick's work, I suppose it might be easy to "see a little Jack Chick" in our posts. Not being familiar with Chick, there's no way to test the validity of your accusation.
LOL
Actually, as long as the differences in doctrine are the mark of the conversation, I'm perfectly capable of having a polite discussion with them.
When the talk descends to the level of "the pope is the anti-Christ," "Jesuits were the ones that created Islam," "tunnels underneath the convent are filled with the rotting corpses of aborted fetuses," "Catholics tried for 1500 years to destroy the Bible," and so on, that's when I break out the Chick cartoon.
Otherwise, I actually rather enjoy discussing the differences in doctrine. I sort of figure it being a Proverbs 27:17 opportunity. Just as long as it stays polite.
Unfortunately, particularly in recent months, it seems like that is not too possible around these parts.
Do you think your trotting out the "Jack Chick" accusations is helping or hindering it?
Sola Scriptura from a man who knows just how far some men will go to misdirect God's word.
He brought me up also out of an horrible pit, out of the miry clay, and set my feet upon a rock, and established my goings. And he hath put a new song in my mouth, even praise unto our God: many shall see it, and fear, and shall trust in the LORD. Blessed is that man that maketh the LORD his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies. Many, O LORD my God, are thy wonderful works which thou hast done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required. Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me, I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart. I have preached righteousness in the great congregation: lo, I have not refrained my lips, O LORD, thou knowest. I have not hid thy righteousness within my heart; I have declared thy faithfulness and thy salvation: I have not concealed thy lovingkindness and thy truth from the great congregation." -- Psalms 40:1-10"I waited patiently for the LORD; and he inclined unto me, and heard my cry.
Since you refer to the actual Catholic website, could you give us the link to it? This looks like something from the illicit SSPX.
Ok. I'll bite.
I heard an apologist speak on the topic of discussing SS with our non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters. He made the point that there are many nuances of SS in the various denominations. He then went into the belief regarding infant baptism from the perspective of both Lutherans and Baptists. While Lutherans accept a Baptist baptism, Baptists do not accept Lutheran baptisms.
He noted that they could cite the same passages from Scripture to back up their (contradictory) beliefs. Also - that both would agree that Scripture was so obvious in its important points that anyone could easily interpret it.
That said, how can one ignore the early Church Fathers and tradition, in favor of Scripture alone given 2 major faiths having diametrically opposing views on one (very important) topic? I could see if my non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters agreed on the major points, that perhaps SS was valid and that perhaps I should reexamine my adherence to Magesterium and Tradition. But, I'm just not seeing it.
How do YOU reconcile this?
Ah, but who cares how we respond, since the Roman Catholic Church doesn't appear to trust or accept either....
Before Vatican II, did the Church accept Protestant baptisms?Already in the 3rd century, the Church defined that the fact that it is a heretic who administers the sacrament of baptism does not make it invalid (Dz, 110). The baptisms of Protestants are consequently to be considered valid, unless a reasonable and prudent doubt occurs as to a defect of the required matter, form or intention (Cf. Roman Ritual, Titulus II, Caput 3, §11 & 12). If there is certitude about the validity of the Protestant baptism, then there is no need to repeat the administration of the sacrament. The ceremonies are to be supplied, the convert makes a general confession, a profession of Faith and abjuration of heresy, and the excommunication incurred is lifted.
However, the usual situation is that it is practically impossible to prove the validity of the Protestant baptism. Since the investigation is very difficult to do and the validity of the Protestant baptism practically impossible to establish, the custom before Vatican II was to baptize conditionally practically every convert being received into the Church. This is still the practice of traditional priests, who are aware of their obligation to guarantee with certainty the validity of the sacrament. This does not mean that the validity of Protestant baptisms is denied, but simply that they do not have the certitude. [Answered by Fr. Peter R. Scott]
Since all "unbaptized" RC babies are supposed to end up in Limbo, there still exists the belief that the RC sacrament of baptism actually confers salvation, and that without this sacrament, a person at best will end up in Limbo.
So do RCs really believe that Protestants can and do go to heaven without an RC baptism while babies born into an RC household are deprived of this reward?
Because apparently that's the fallout from not having an RC baptism.
"Me 'n my RC. What's good enough for other folks ain't good enough for me!"
But I've never baptised with it.
First time for everything, I guess.
:>)
lol. Same difference. 8~)
Every Baptist knows you baptize salted peanuts in RC Cola.
Just a reflection of what is. You want to change the tone? Fine, I'll bite:
On the other hand, if you question a doctrine or doubt a doctrine on a Catholic-initiated thread, I am likewise sure that most would welcome the question or be glad for the debate...just keep it real and don't start off "the Pope's the antichrist..." "Catholics quote scripture when convenient but ignore it when it points out their blasphemy" or other comments of that type.
See, I only pull out that Jack Chick comic when I see comments that are over the edge. Does it fan the flames. Sure. But maybe, just maybe, it gets somebody like you to think about it.
Peace.
My North Carolina family is all into boiled peanuts. They do NOT go well with RC....(they don't go well with anything, imho.)
Isn't there a law that everything south of the Mason-Dixon has to go with a big RC? (Let's ask our token southerner, Corin.)
ohferheavenssake, must I teach you people everything?
RC Colas (in bottles) are served with moonpies.
Peanuts (salted, roasted, not boiled) are served IN Coke (again in bottles)
I forgot about moonpies....I feel so stupid, and I am repentent what with it being worse than a venial sin or even than a mortal sin to even consider RC without MoonPies.
(Arterial Sin! The very, very worst.)
What's the appropriate beverage to serve alongside dee-licious Goo-Goo Clusters?
Jack Daniels
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.