Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
You wrote:
“Respectful dialogue is done man to man not by playing politics over a magazine or the internet.”
Incorrect. Respectful dialogue is done in a respectful tone not in a particular medium. Ever read the respectful WRITTEN debates of Joad, Lunn, and others?
“True dialogue doesn’t need impersonal letter writing.”
True dialogue comes from the heart and mind. Impersonality is irrelevant.
“I question the sincerity and purpose of someone who doesn’t have the integrity to speak to him personally or write him personally before he engages in advertising his position.”
I don’t in this case. 1) The motives are clear - evangelization. 2) More conversions may result this way. 3) More personal communications may simply be impossible.
“Again, sincerity of dialogue is achieved by personal association not some advertising campaign for Catholic theology.”
Your either/or is simply nonsensical. 1) This open letter might be the beginning of a more personal association that might otherwise never happen. That’s what happened in the past with others. 2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.
“Christian charity is achieved through a letter published openly and now on the Internet?”
Yes, if it is charitable in intent and method.
“Is that what you call charity? I call it propaganda and impersonal despite the putative sincerity.”
What you call it is irrelevant. Again, the intent was charitable, the method was charitable under the circumstances. There is no logical reason to doubt the sincerity of the letter. Please remember that St. Paul wrote to the Romans even though he had never visited them yet. Was what he wrote propaganda when he wrote: “For I really want to see you and give you the gift of the Spirit, so that you may be justified through Him, And as one we become justified through faith, yours and mine”?
“I guess it would be redundant for me to answer this one given my position above.”
I don’t think you can answer it. Apparently all you can do is complain about it.
Remember, Paul wrote a letter to the Romans and he didn’t even know them.
Mr. Stephen A. Baldwin.......“born again”????.
.......through synergism or monergism? Just curious......
Medium counts. But now I would be repeating myself. I question impersonal letter writing done through a magazine.
True dialogue comes from the heart and mind. Impersonality is irrelevant.
So if he published his letter in, let's say, Penthouse, that would be ok? Medium and methodology do count. Indeed part of the message you intend to make depends in how it's delivered not just what is stated. I question the motive and sincerity of the method you don't.
I don’t in this case. 1) The motives are clear - evangelization. 2) More conversions may result this way. 3) More personal communications may simply be impossible.
The motives are not evangelization. He is not preaching to the lost. What you mistate as evangelization is actually an intention to teach or potentially to disciple at least that's a known secondary and maybe even primary definition. But that is quibbling over definitions. And how can you state personal dialogue "may simply be impossible"? Had the author attempted personal dialogue with Mr. Baldwin? I guess not. So instead of honestly reaching out to communicate, a magazine is used with his famous name in the process. To do what? Gain some readership? Cynical yes. But justifiably so.
Your either/or is simply nonsensical. 1) This open letter might be the beginning of a more personal association that might otherwise never happen. That’s what happened in the past with others. 2) Sincere dialogue is from a sincere mind and heart and exists irrespective of medium used to communicate.
Or it might be the beginning of a personal offense. Did the writer attempt to contact Baldwin and advise he would be writing a letter to him and publishing it in his magazine likely aware that same could be published all over the internet? Indeed, would it not be absurd for him to have actually spoken to Baldwin and stating to him I'm publishing an open letter to you - read it in the next edition? The absurdity is not mine.
What you call it is irrelevant. Again, the intent was charitable, the method was charitable under the circumstances. There is no logical reason to doubt the sincerity of the letter. Please remember that St. Paul wrote to the Romans even though he had never visited them yet. Was what he wrote propaganda when he wrote: “For I really want to see you and give you the gift of the Spirit, so that you may be justified through Him, And as one we become justified through faith, yours and mine”?
Your understanding of St. Paul's letter as the medium for delivery is deficient. It was a personal letter delivered personally by Christian brothers not published in the daily Roman press.Furthermore, he had actual physical reasons why he could not be there personally - related to his mission and facility of access. I can imagine Paul taking a flight and being there if we were to translate some kind of analogy to present day. That wasn't possible then. So what is the deficient physical ability of the writer here? Too busy evangelizing in China or India? I think not.
Why are you in judgement of him?
Common sense and charitable to be doing this on the internet? IF you have a problem with Stephen Baldwin and feel he is going astray, go to HIM! This is between the writer and Baldwin. This is no one's business and I am appalled that Christians are doing this to him.
16"But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that (N)BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED.
17"If he refuses to listen to them, (O)tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, (P)let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
Of course, in this case Stephen didn't sin, or commit an error. It's just that the author disagrees with Stephen on the Eucharist.
As to “Baptism is necessary for salvation. “.
Jesus told the thief on the cross that he was saved. He was not baptised.
There is no record that Mary was baptised, but I imagine there is some “tradition” that says she was.
Baptism was, of course, something done to believers, involving washing. If it is necessary, then we should have to do it correctly. If it’s just a sign, it’s not as important.
He’s hardly a recent Christian. He’s been one for years, he has a major evangelical ministry, and has brought many people to Christ.
Have you formally defected from the Church? Formally renounced the faith to your parish pastor or your bishop?
If not, you're still a Catholic (even though you may worship elsewhere or not at all). You're welcome to come home at any time.
If so, you can still come home.
So many so-called Catholics I know state that it doesn’t really matter what one believes, as long as you’re a “good person” and believe in “something”. I kid you not. And these are regular churchgoers.
I'd love to hear where you heard that. I've seen enough in my short life that it wouldn't surprise me...but I'd still like to know where to watch out for!
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
74 God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth":29 that is, of Christ Jesus.30 Christ must be proclaimed to all nations and individuals, so that this revelation may reach to the ends of the earth:
459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: "Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me." "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."74 On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"75 Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you."76 This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.77
1698 The first and last point of reference of this catechesis will always be Jesus Christ himself, who is "the way, and the truth, and the life."24 It is by looking to him in faith that Christ's faithful can hope that he himself fulfills his promises in them, and that, by loving him with the same love with which he has loved them, they may perform works in keeping with their dignity:
For to me, to live is Christ.26
You may wish to look into what the Church actually teaches: the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you were surrounded by people who preached the "nice person" theory of salvation, I have no idea what other pap you were taught (let me stress, the blame for that rests with the person who taught you, not with you!!!!!)
Or, alternatively, if you have questions, ASK!!! There are a lot of well-educated Catholics around these parts who would love nothing more than to answer any questions you might have!
I believe the author is evangelizing. Inviting Baldwin to join him in Catholicism.
You wrote:
“Medium counts. But now I would be repeating myself. I question impersonal letter writing done through a magazine.”
Okay, question it. You have not been able to make much of a case that it matters that it is an open letter. All you’ve said so far is that you don’t like it because you feel it’s impersonal.
“So if he published his letter in, let’s say, Penthouse, that would be ok?”
No. I said medium. That means type of communication here, not type of porn.
“Medium and methodology do count. Indeed part of the message you intend to make depends in how it’s delivered not just what is stated. I question the motive and sincerity of the method you don’t.”
I don’t because both the motive and method are obvious.
“The motives are not evangelization. He is not preaching to the lost.”
Evangelization is not just preaching to the lost. It can and is preaching to those who identify themselves as Christians but who lack the fullness of the faith.
“What you mistate as evangelization is actually an intention to teach or potentially to disciple at least that’s a known secondary and maybe even primary definition.”
No, this is evangelization.
“But that is quibbling over definitions. And how can you state personal dialogue “may simply be impossible”?”
Because it may be impossible.
“Had the author attempted personal dialogue with Mr. Baldwin?”
Maybe yes, maybe no. You don’t know and neither do I.
“I guess not. So instead of honestly reaching out to communicate, a magazine is used with his famous name in the process. To do what? Gain some readership? Cynical yes. But justifiably so.”
No, it is done to evangelize - just as it is obvious.
“Or it might be the beginning of a personal offense. Did the writer attempt to contact Baldwin and advise he would be writing a letter to him and publishing it in his magazine likely aware that same could be published all over the internet?”
You don’t know. And it is not essential. Thankfully Justin Martyr did not follow your tact.
“Indeed, would it not be absurd for him to have actually spoken to Baldwin and stating to him I’m publishing an open letter to you - read it in the next edition? The absurdity is not mine.”
That would be absurd - much like your hand-wringing angst over this simple letter.
“Your understanding of St. Paul’s letter as the medium for delivery is deficient.”
No, there is nothing deficient about my understanding of St. Paul’s letter.
“It was a personal letter delivered personally by Christian brothers not published in the daily Roman press.”
1) There was no such thing as the Roman press, and if there was, Paul - with his great zeal for souls - would have used it.
2) It was not a personal letter because it was not written to one person but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”. He wrote the letter to the whole CHURCH of Rome.
3) He wrote the letter in secret. It was not a personal letter. It was a secret letter. It was written in secret to protect the faithful. And it still wasn’t a personal letter of the sort you imagine.
“Furthermore, he had actual physical reasons why he could not be there personally - related to his mission and facility of access. I can imagine Paul taking a flight and being there if we were to translate some kind of analogy to present day. That wasn’t possible then. So what is the deficient physical ability of the writer here? Too busy evangelizing in China or India? I think not.”
How would you know? Also, there doesn’t have to be a physical reason impeding a meeting. That’s just your personal oddity on this. The open letter is about evangelization. Souls will be converted no matter what. The author probably composed the letter because bringing fallen away Catholics back to the Church has been a special concern of his: http://books.google.com/books?id=rXnd43pXAt4C&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=Victor+R.+Claveau+biography&source=web&ots=GAwxWiyunK&sig=DxBdIvyEql0lwKRjSfoHv-MWX8g&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
**Does the Catholic church stand by John 14:6 “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man come to the Father but by Me”?**
Absolutely.
**I’m a former Catholic,**
No such thing as a former Catholic — UNLESS you filled out piles of paperwork and had a hearing in front of a panel.
You are still a Catholic and we welcome you home at any time.
Many churches have Returning Catholics classes and I am sure you would be most welcome. Our program is entitled, “Catholics Can Come Home Again.”
These threads for Beginning Catholics have these basic beliefs all explained for you.
Beginning Catholic: Basic Tenets of Catholicism [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: The Creed Of The People Of God: The Essentials/Catholic Belief [Ecumenical]
Beginning Catholic: Creeds: Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian [Ecumenical]
You wrote:
“Common sense and charitable to be doing this on the internet?”
Yes. This is not an inappropriate use of the internet.
“IF you have a problem with Stephen Baldwin and feel he is going astray, go to HIM!”
Where does the author say that he has a problem with Stephen Baldwin? Where does the author say Baldwin has gone astray.
“This is between the writer and Baldwin.”
No, this is between Baldwin and the fullness of the faith. Claveau is merely the instrument.
“This is no one’s business and I am appalled that Christians are doing this to him.”
Nothing is being done to him. It’s an open letter. He can just ignore it. You make it sound like he’s being stabbed or beaten in the street.
If you have additional specific questions, I’ll be glad to answer them either here or in FReepmail. (Sometimes that works better.)
You wrote:
“He’s hardly a recent Christian. He’s been one for years, he has a major evangelical ministry, and has brought many people to Christ.”
No, he himself says his conversion came about after 9/11. That means he has been serious about Christianity for less than 7 years. That’s a relatively recent conversion.
“I invite you return to your Catholic roots and invite all “Bible Christians” to explore the truth of Catholicism. “
If this article is an example of “the truth of Catholicism”,
it falls short of the Bible.
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.