Intended Catholic Dictatorship

Independent Individualist ^ | 8/27/10 | Reginald Firehammer

[Judith Anne]

You somehow have extrapolated four words from those exchanges into a discussion of the Trinity.

Heh heh. What were those four amazing words, "Doc"?

[D-fendr]

Metmom, my sincere apologies. We are discussing a post of yours in the posts above this one and you should have been pinged.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

What do you agree with in Mark’s post?

[D-fendr]

I’m off to sleep, friends.

Thanks for the discussion tonight.

Pleasant dreams and God bless..

[Judith Anne]

Same here. But I predict the posts from our Calvinist friends will continue.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Go back to the post and read it in context. She was denying that the Ark is Mary. The Ark was a shadow of Christ.

Your attempt to pluck out four words from a lengthy post to make some nonsense point has failed.

Do you also believe “jesus body carried God”

Is Jesus God?

See? Your point is meaningless.

And for the record, Mary is not the Ark. Mary has nothing to do with the Ark. As RnMomof7 wrote, "they cannot see the types and shadow of Christ, because they do not know who He is or how to find him."

Exactly. Instead they take the glory of God alone and give it to a creature. Rome's belligerent hubris knows no bounds.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Mary is not the ark.

Five words.

[Judith Anne]

What do you agree with in Mark’s post?

All of it.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Dream of them.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You agree with all of what in Mark’s post?

[Judith Anne]

Where is your subpoena?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Gibberish.

[Judith Anne]

Fine, let me be clear: I agree with Mark Bsnr’s post. All of it. I don’t feel compelled to discuss that with you, whether you command it (”You agree with all of what in Mark’s post?”) or request it.

You have declined to answer multiple questions on the thread, there is no reason for anyone to take your demands seriously.

[Mad Dawg]

[I John 3:] 3 Everyone who has this hope based on him makes himself pure, as he is pure.

It is lines like this that gnawed at me and finally led me to think that Calvinism, as popularly expressed -- or the line about a snow-covered dunghill, just weren't adequate to account for all that we find in Scripture.

I could say that the blessed may start out as snow-covered dunghills, but I don't think we can rest there, because here the snow-covered dunghill is told that it is called, and, if called, enabled -- somehow -- to make itself pure.

It is too bad we spend so much time at one another's throats. Calvin is good, and so is Luther, on the startling proclamation of the utterly free and completely unmerited gift of grace. They and their followers are often very good indeed on all the temptations to pride with which the enemy assails those who have thrown themselves on God's mercy. In a less bitter environment we could profit much from sharing our experience of living with grace, with the fact of grace.

And such an exchange could hardly be anything less than beneficial to all. Not only history but our own lives and our experience of one another testify to the way "kicking at the pricks" persists after we have been opened to the beginning of awareness of God's love. I could often be profitably rebuked by my non-Catholic friends that I have fallen back into thinking too much depends on me alone and graciously reminded that every good and perfect gift comes from above.

And perhaps we Catholics who wander through an enchanted forest where, as the trees in the fairy tale drip jewels, we find angel, saint, and sacrament shedding consolations -- perhaps we could also sometimes encourage our friends to look up and see, for our salvation is close at hand.

Truth be told, (that would be a nice change, huh?) we all face the problem of: Okay, I'm a Christian, now what? How does one, while remaining utterly dependent on God for every breath and every thought and intention, "make oneself pure, as He is pure?"

Let's pray for a time when we can put down the cudgels and assist one another along the way, across the river, and into the kingdom.

[Mad Dawg]

“Jesus’ body carried God.”

Since I don't know, (and don't care to spend the time finding out) I can just enjoy the crypto-Manichean qualities of this formulation. Loosely understood it's okay, but our bodies do not 'carry' our selves. Genesis 2:7.

And this formulation, in its potential errors, also helps display how the Chalcedonian Definition is important in preserving us from the error of thinking that God was in Christ somehow as if a puppet master were in one of the puppets.

[RnMomof7]

Do you happen to recall the Trinitarian claim that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit made a pact of their actions by a member of the Reformed? Actually I think he is referring to me..there is a belief that the Father, Son andd HS agreed on the plan of salvation.. I think it is taught as the 1st covenant??

[Cronos]

Do note Dr E, NL said "of the Gospels and Beatitudes as the crux of the New Covenant".

Crux meaning the most important part.

Do you agree that the Gospels and the Beatitudes are the most important part of the New Covenant? I assume you do, but please could you confirm?


The Church lives and breathes scripture and Tradition -- neither contradicting each other. At Mass each Sunday we read from the Old Testament, the Gospels, the Epistles and the rest of the New Testament, we sing psalms, we teach, we learn, we preach, we listen, we experience a personal relationship with Christ in the Eucharist, we remember with awe and trembling His sacrifice, we celebrate His life, we mourn His death and we rejoice at His resurrection and ascension into Heaven, we repeat our words of belief in God the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, the Triune God, God from God, light from light, True God from True God. This is The Church of Christ in His fullness, THIS is the One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church, Christ's Church, protected by the Holy Spirit and keeping the faith as taught by Christ through His Apostles and their disciples and their disciples disciples.

[Cronos]

Err... I must have missed it, sorry, but where exactly have you seen any Catholic response "pitting" the Gospels against the rest of scripture?? At no post have I seen that. All that I have seen is Catholic posters pointing out that in many Calvinist groups you read from the Epistles almost to exclusion and do not read the Gospels.

We read from the OT, NT (Gospels + Epistles) each Sunday and during the week and we read through the entire Bible, so no we do not pit or see contradictions. And, no, we do not believe that true Baptists (I'm saying that because I discount Westboro as a baptist group), Presbyterians (except the gay PCUSA) or Evangelicals (except the Benny Hinn, Word of Faith, Jesse Duplantis, Creflo Dollar etc) believe that either (I can't say all Protestants as Seventh Day Adventists are pretty dicey and ditto for many of the other groups even you would say are Protestant, forget about Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists etc.).

[Cronos]

And again, sir, you are incorrectly saying that the Gospels must trump the rest of scripture. Rather, what is true is that The Gospels are the main central point of scripture and the Epistles etc., “elaborate” on that — why? because the Gospels are the Words and Deeds of Christ and they were the testing stone used in the determination of canon.

[kosta50]

Those ‘serious’ scholars are mostly lost, and trying hard to get you lost. They don’t know the Lord, and he doesn’t know them. they are caught up in the “wisdom of men” which is foolishness to God

And why should I believe you when you, unlike them, provide no evidence to support your disparaging judgments?