Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[D-fendr]

If you'll start with the initial post here, and read through, you will get the context.

[the_conscience]

So "holy" is defined as cooperation between God and the (abstract) free will of man? Besides the fact that I have never seen a definition of holy in this way, how can a personal God cooperate with an abstract principle?

Here's Merriams:

1 : exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness
3 : devoted entirely to the deity or the work of the deity
4 a : having a divine quality b : venerated as or as if sacred
5 —used as an intensive ; often used in combination as a mild oath

So I guess my speculation finds cooperation Webster's understanding. Apparently the pious rebuke should be rescinded.

And I'm not surprised you don't understand.

[D-fendr]

So depraved is defined as..

Besides the fact that I have never seen...

And around we go again.

Your position seems to be to oppose no matter what.

I’ve really lost interest in trying for discussion here.

thanks for your reply.

[Iscool]

I'd say the context pretty much determines the definition...

Mat 23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:

As we all know, Moses' seat, although not a chair, it is the position of authority over the Jewish people...Whatever came out of Moses' seat was to be authentic Jewish teaching, accepted by the religious Jewish community over the course of many years, decades or centuries...

These people were in charge of overseeing the oracles of God as given to the Jews by God...

Mat 23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do;

The idea is that whatever the Pharisees bid you do is the same as what was given by the Scribes and Pharisees thruout history...The oracles don't change from one group of Pharisees to the next...

but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

But the idea in the context as I see it is that this group of Pharisees are reading the actual oracles and maybe going well overboard on their (the oracle's) intent, all the while doing things far differently that the oracles prescribe...

Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Mat 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments,

It's clear to me that Jesus told these folks to follow what the Pharisees are telling you as long as it's word for word out of historical Moses' seat...Ignore their embellished version and definitely don't do what you see them do whatever it is, that is contrary to historical teaching...

[Iscool]

Thank you for proving stfassisi’s point and confirming my opinion that the full esse of Church is among those in Communion with the Holy See. Stfassisi set the standard of proof and straight away you met it.

Well sure...Good is bad...Bad is good...Where have I heard that before???

[Iscool]

History can be a troublesome thing, when you’re trying to paint a pretty portrait of yourself...

[Quix]

What an absurd response.

[Las Vegas Dave]

Indeed!

[Quix]

Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

Colossians 1:16
For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

CHRIST--BY WHOM ALL THINGS WERE CREATED!

!DOH! And they try and convince us The Bible is familiar to them! Sheesh.

[Iscool]

He is one Person with two natures

How do you define person??? Is that one human body with two natures???

[Quix]

Wellllllllllllllll Alamo-Girl; here the absurd statement is made AGAIN!

I don't have a lot of confidence that even their own Papal document via their own stfassisi will influence such obtuseness in behalf of truly Biblical understanding.

I don't think I've ever ran onto a single other Christian in all my 63 years who would brazenly claim that Mary was the mother of Almighty/Father God. Someone needs to give these folks lessons in when to stop digging.

Alamo-Girl:
“”I prefer the title “Mother of the Incarnate Word” Arius notwithstanding.””

From Pope John Paul II

http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm37.htm

Now, the difficulties and objections raised by Nestorius offer us the opportunity to make several useful reflections for correctly understanding and interpreting this title. The expression Theotókos, which literally means, “she who has begotten God”, can at first sight seem surprising; in fact it raises the question as to how it is possible for a human creature to give birth to God. The answer of the Church’s faith is clear: Mary’s divine motherhood refers only to the human begetting of the Son of God but not, however, to his divine birth. The Son of God was eternally begotten of God the Father, and is consubstantial with him. Mary, of course, has no part in this eternal birth. However, the Son of God assumed our human nature 2,000 years ago and was conceived by and born of Mary.

In proclaiming Mary “Mother of God”, the Church thus intends to affirm that she is the “Mother of the Incarnate Word, who is God”. Her motherhood does not, therefore, extend to all the Trinity, but only to the Second Person, the Son, who, in becoming incarnate, took his human nature from her.

. . .

6,730 posted on Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:36:49 PM by stfassisi

IF such absurd manglings of Scripture didn't tend to give one a horrid case of whiplash, they might be more amusing. Sheesh! WHAT NONSENSE!

[Quix]

INDEED.

Sometimes the obtuseness seems quite genetic. Certainly RELIGIOUSLY ‘genetic.’

[Quix]

IF I had the time and money, I’d sure try and research this incredible phenomenon . . . were FR RC’s are by a huge majority extremely given to absurdities far beyond those typical of RC’s we meet face to face. Mystifying.

Face to face RC’s I’ve known have typically been:

—far more honest.
—far more intellectually honest.

—far better intellectually generally.
—far less addicted to the Maryolatry cult.

—far more RELLIGIOUSLY RATIONAL generally.
—far more rational generally.

—while many are still quite vigorously Roman Catholic, most are, nevertheless, far less obtusely rabid about it.
—far more grounded in reality and able to be reasonably conversational about authentic reality.

What is WITH such a big average difference on such scores on the part of the bulk of FR’s RC’s? Mystifying. Shockingly and annoyingly mystifying.

[Quix]

Here I keep getting told by Romanists that their church is the one that the “truth once delivered” was delivered to but yet apparently not all the truth?

So if someone wants to join the Romanist Church today they have to assent not only to “Mary mother of God” but to “Mary mother of God with additional premises”?

What great heresy was the Romanist Church fighting that made them have to declare that Mary was sinless?

---

There ya go agin’

One can’t EXPECT

the theology promulgated by the

VATICAN ALICE IN WONDERLAND SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AND REALITY MANGLING

to be rational, coherent, stable, timeless, NON-convoluted, consistent, BIBLICAL, historically accurate, nor largely true.

Sadly.

[Quix]

That’s encouraging.

Lack of Linguistic awareness is not quite as horrific as lack of Biblical awareness.

Proddys can be graciously understanding about the handicaps fostered by the

Vatican Daffynitionary.

Sheesh.

I’m curious—any Proddys out there—did anyone have any doubt that ALMIGHTY GOD = FATHER GOD???

[Quix]

Rome preaches another Gospel.

---

That’s horrific enough.

They preach another

—reality
—multiverse
—daffynitionary
—stretchy convoluted history
—pretend logic

and . . . coming soon to a parish nearby

—that what are actually fallen angel “ET’s” [evidently unbeknownst to the Vatican] are, per the Vatican . . . “space brothers” either not in need of Salvation or elligible for Salvation through Christ.

It’s still shocking that not only do they expect us to think their Religion is Biblical and rational—they think we should consider them better Christians than say the LDS or other cults.

And I used to. Before I ran into this pile of RC’s on FR.

[Quix]

“Either RCs are ignorant of what their church teaches, or they will say anything to make a point; a point which changes daily.”

If I were a generous person I might assume the first, however given that anyone can find the same information quite readily......

---

INDEED. However, to folks used to stretchy theology from Alice’s rabbit hole; daffynitionaries; stretchy histories . . . I can appreciate that finding a Vatican source that was consistent, coherent, stable, etc. would likely be extremely impossible on the face of it—even on the net.

The Vatican seems to have made a centuries long art of constructing convoluted nonsense and pretending it’s Biblical and pretending it’s rational theology.

[Quix]

That’s easy. If I had money, it would be

OLD REGGIE for a thousand, in a flash.

[Quix]

Only skeptics?

They’ve

BROUGHT IN THE CLOWNS

for years hereon . . . and pretended we were conversing with theological giants on their side.

I think the last 60 days, the residue of 15-25% respect I had left for some of the RC’s has been quite energetically [by them] flushed down the binjo ditch.

[Quix]

I realize there’s some Biblical overlap of some terms in Scripture.

I don’t ever recall considering El Shaddai as any but The Father, however.

In my neck of the woods and in all my tavels—amongst pagans, diverse Christians—including many RC’s, Buddhists, atheists etc.,

ALMIGHTY GOD has always only referred to THE FATHER.

I understand the accuracy and logic of your exposition above.