Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Mad Dawg]

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

From the Pharisees who criticized Jesus for eating with sinners and quislings, from the Roman provincial governors who justified the torture and murder of Christians because they were libertine and perverted cannibals.

There's plenty of precedent for the Church reaching out to those despised by those assured of their own righteousness and there's plenty of precedent for the abusive disapproval of the self-righteous.

That's where you've heard it before.

[Natural Law]

" Hey, if they don't have it right, tell them."

That is a vacuous dodge. The bottom line is that you have no qualifications to form anything other than a biased and superficial opinion of anything Catholic....and it shows.

[Jvette]

Read the Scripture. It quite clearly says that though He walked with them speaking and interpreting Scripture to them they did not know him until the blessing and breaking of the bread.

Yes, their eyes were blinded to who He was, but why does God blind them to who Jesus is as He is reciting Scripture to them? Tell me, why does God open their eyes when Jesus blesses and breaks the bread? And, why does Jesus vanish at the very moment after blessing and breaking the bread and giving it to them to eat?

Scripture clearly says that they saw Him and knew Him after He blessed the bread, broke it and gave it to them to eat.
Exactly as He had done at the Last Supper, exactly as is done in every Mass.

Scripture cannot lie, I never said it did, it is a misinterpretation on the part of those who reject Christ in the Eucharist.

[Mad Dawg]

I asked Quix and I understood him to answer that God Almighty denoted what we theologians technically refer to as “the whole ball of wax,” the Trinity.

[roamer_1]

As we all know, Moses' seat, although not a chair [...]

In fact it WAS a physical seat:

For the reader, Moses' Seat is revealed in Exodus 18:13+, along with the formation of the proto-Sanhedrin... And synagogues had an actual seat after that tradition, which the Pharisees sat upon to do judgment (pic'd above). One can certainly assume a greater Seat of Moses in the Temple itself.

[...] 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...

True. However, this shows a lack of a great prophet, or that the prophets were not being listened to... Jesus charges these Pharisees (y'know the ones everyone is to listen to, even if they are apostate) with murdering all the prophets, suggesting a long line of usurpers. (ref. Matt 23:29-35)

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...

True in part. The Torah (/Tenakh) did not change... But their oral law, their !!!TRADITION!!! (Mishnah) surely did (Gee, that sounds SO familiar). It has been many years since I read the Talmud/Mishnah, but I would bet money that every one of the things Christ used in His Matt 23 rant has it's place in that tradition.

This is the thing that got me going: Christ flatly defied the apostate authorities of the Temple, yet did not sin... As He says, "Which is greater, the alter or the sacrifice upon it?" It is my position that Christ defied the tradition, not the Torah. THAT is a substantial difference.

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...

I must absolutely agree. It seems absurd for Christ to tell them to follow after a "pit of vipers" and "blind guides."

But, as you are probably painfully aware, these verses (Matt 23:2-3) are often plucked out of context to build "!!!AUTHORITY!!!" for other usurpers.

Looking at Christ's example, it must not be true. And further, His Apostles denied these same authorities outright - Perhaps giving us the best authority (outside of Christ Himself) in the matter:

Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
Act 5:28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Act 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

If the Disciples had listened to "!!!AUTHORITY!!!" rather than Christ, the Church would have died that very day. THAT is precedent.

Thanks for the reply.

[Quix]

Well said.

Prayerfully so.

Have a blessed weekend, Bro.

[smvoice]

I'll tell you something else that shows: your ignorance of what I just said. YOUR TEAM posts your beliefs/teachings. Every time something by your side is posted to try to make your point, OUR point ends up being made. We don't have to surmise your church's beliefs.. You could not POSSIBLY give me too much information on catechism or canon, or tradition or doctrine. I welcome it. It proves our point, every time it's given.

And that is not a vacuous IMPLICIT dodge. That is EXPLICITY stated.

[caww]

I have read the Catechism....

It does appear the catholic church...then..doesn't change anything but rather..”expands and clarifies”?????? That looks like a twisting of terminology to escape the use of the word “change”.

I don't believe believers who have opted out of the catholic church, or those who belong to other denominations are catholics gone astray or lost. Rather they see the contradictions clearly and the twisting of scriptures, even opposition to them, which is why people are not “sold” on the catholic church...Christ rather is central to their life.... and to some all the “other” trappings the catholic church requires are just another road of works and or compliance to their church and what Rome determines...rather than the freedom Christ gives to worship Him without all the “other” trappings. IMO.

Most who follow Christ and the truth desire a deeper understanding of Christ over that of their church...which is basically a meeting place for believers. We become the “body of Christ” as we come together, and it is we who reflect Him to an unsaved world.

[Quix]

Hmmmmmm

Do you have that wording handy?

[prot]

"When a religion takes on the tendancies and characteristics of that religion in Matt. 23, as yours does, it's pretty clear biblically that those verses posted by the good Doctor are directed at that religion and those of the same ilk..."

You have no idea whether I even have a 'religion'. But you did use the 'ilk' word. Did you stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night?

Spell-check is your friend, btw.

"You can wallow in the mud and claim you're clean, but......"

And you can go to McDonald's but that doesn't make you a hamburger...

[Mad Dawg]

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?

The mess-understanding is ENTIRELY due to your poor judgment in deciding not to come to MOI with your questions, my son. I KEEP on SAYING that the working definition of "poorly catechized" is "disagrees with Dawg," but do they listen? "A prophet is not without honor save in his own forum and thread ..."

(Jeepers it's hard to be humble when I'm so great.)

Seriously (well, almost) ...Alla TIME we are talking about "development" or, as I call it, "unfolding." Again and again, repeatedly, over and over, redundantly, AND a whole lot have I said that the unfolding is articulated into some kind of crisis (not necessarily a heresy, BTW).

It's a lot like how cases get to the Supremes. The royal road is if one Circuit court says "A" and another says, "Not A."

I really don't know the history of the Marian dogmata. My IMPRESSION (FWIW = not much) is that there was a mounting clamor in the Cat'licks for the question of the IC to be settled. There were Catherine Laboure's apparitions and the subsequent miracles claimed for the so-called "miraculous medal". (My usual tag line is from one of the apparitions and is around the edge of the obverse of the medal. The money phrase is "conceived without sin.)"

If I am right (good luck with that), it wasn't so much a controversy as a strong and strongly expressed desire that the matter be defined and settled.

People who actually know stuff are invited to chime in.

[Cronos]

well, of course, there’s no problem, there are plenty of Seventh Day Adventists, OPC, Word-of-faith and BEnny Hinn Presbyterians out there who will form a new Calvinist or other group for the rotten tomatoes. WHy don’t you give up the rotten eggs and tomatoes and come to God’s truth in God’s Church, the One Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ, nurtured by the Holy Spirit and in the teachings of Christ through His Apostles.

[Mad Dawg]

What’s the purpos in OBSCURING the doctrine of the Trinity???

Wha'? How'd I do that? Serious question.

[roamer_1]

Christ died for our sins. Did He himself have / inherit original sin?

No, I think not. But Christ is special, as He is the ONLY instance where the sins of the fathers could not be passed down, as His Father was not within the curse.

I think this should be taken quite literally:

Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

1Jn 3:16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.

(e-Sword: KJV)

[Mad Dawg]

Nothing is “handy” when you’re on dial-up.

I purposefully said “I understood him to say ...”

So, what do you mean by God Almighty?

[Alex Murphy]

well, of course, there’s no problem, there are plenty of Seventh Day Adventists, OPC, Word-of-faith and BEnny Hinn Presbyterians out there who will form a new Calvinist or other group for the rotten tomatoes.

Seventh-Day Adventists, "Benny Hinn Presbyterians" and Word-of-Faithers forming new Calvinist groups? That says all I need to know about the state of Catholic education.

[prot]

"No, I think not. But Christ is special, as He is the ONLY instance where the sins of the fathers could not be passed down, as His Father was not within the curse."

No doubt Christ is special, but how could He purchase our redemption if He did not have a 'sin nature' that could be submitted to the will of the Father?

Hebrews 4:15 - "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin."

Clearly, if he did not have a 'sin nature', He was not "tempted in every way, just as we are".

[OLD REGGIE]

Thank you four thoughtful reply. I will address the one point I think is a stumbling block and likely to be misunderstood by most Catholics and many Protestants.

Catholics don’t disagree with this. But, it doesn’t mean that EVERYTHING is in Scripture and that outside of Scripture there can be no truth.

I believe any person that would make such a claim is a certifiable nut. I have seen no such definition of Sola Scripture. (I have asked several Catholic Posters who ridicule Sola Scripture what their definition is. I have not received a single reply.)

On the other hand, I believe that there can be, and is, great danger in stretching Scripture with man made "tradition" which has been developed well beyond the age of the Apostles.

I am certain you have seen some Protestants who argue that the Catholic Church has downgraded Scripture to no less than an "equal" status with man made doctrine.

Catechism Of The Catholic Church.

95 "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls."

By golly it has! On the other hand

[smvoice]

This is the thing that got me going: Christ flatly defied the apostate authorities of the Temple, yet did not sin... As He says, "Which is greater, the alter or the sacrifice upon it?" It is my position that Christ defied the tradition, not the Torah. THAT is a substantial difference.

Maybe Matt. 15:1-9 helps. "But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" Matt. 15:3.

"Why do thy disciples trangress the tradition of the elders?.."Matt. 15:2.

The tradition of the elders seems clearly what Jesus was defying. Jews held that the writings of the scribes were more important than those of the law and the prophets- "the words of the elders are weightier than the words of the prophets". Traditions were held to be the finishing touch to the Divine revelation.

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Matt. 5:17.

The traditions were not listed there. Which is what He destroyed with the pharisees and saducees and scribes. The tradition of men built IMPLICITY on the law. imho

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you, dear brothers in Christ, for your replies!

I am combining my response in one post so that I don't take up space repeating myself. And I ask your understanding, dear Mad Dawg, for using my regular font size as this post is too long for the big font.

As Quix noted earlier, to him and evidently many others the Name of God, Almighty, is taken to mean God the Father. As with the Name of God, God, this is to be expected upon reading passages such as this (emphasis mine):

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

And the armies [which were] in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

And he hath on [his] vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS. – Revelation 19:11-16

And this,

And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I [am] the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. - Exodus 6:2-3

But it cuts both ways in the following which continues with Jesus Christ clearly identifying Himself as Alpha and Omega:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand.

John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him [be] glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. - Revelation 1:1-8

Thus one might have great difficulty with this prophecy which uses the Name of God, The Mighty God and Everlasting Father when speaking of Jesus Christ:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. – Isaiah 9:6

In my view, the problem arises whenever we mere mortals attempt to apply the Law of Identity (A=A and not B) to God. Indeed, the LDS doctrine does precisely that and the Trinity is rejected by that religion. And others reject the Trinity on those very logical grounds.

But man is not the measure of God!

The Laws of Logic are part of the creation, not a property or restriction on the Creator of them. We must lay them aside in our meditations on the Names of God.

And again, the Law of Identity does not apply to God.

If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

Believe me that I [am] in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. - John 14:7-11

Thus, when one says "Mother of God" and the hearer's spiritual perception is that God is Triune, then the title needs a footnote to explain that it really means mother of the Incarnate Word Who IS God the Creator (John 1:1-4), that the Father is in Him and He is in the Father (Rev 5, John 1:18) and He is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person (Hebrews 1:3) - but that Mary is not mother of God the Father and not mother of the Holy Spirit even though God is One God.

In effect the speaker must deconstruct the Trinity into three separate identities in order to convey what is actually meant by that title and then reconstitute the Name of God, God, so that they do not misunderstand that the title is not meant to be a reduction of the Name of God, God, as in the Triune God.

Praise God that there are Names of God which apply only to the Incarnate Word: Word, Jesus, Christ, Messiah, Emmanuel, etc.

And so I personally can and do avoid causing confusion to the youngers (who are probably not yet ready for a lesson in the Law of Identity and why it does not apply to the Creator of it) - by simply using the title "Mother of the Incarnate Word."

Like I said before, it is the same issue we have when admiring Michaelangelo's Creation of Adam with a younger. We do the younger a disservice if we do not carefully explain that God is not an old gray-haired man on a cloud.

God's Name is I AM.