Posted on 04/16/2014 5:37:55 AM PDT by Salvation
Featured Term (selected at random:
ROSMINIANISM
A system of philosophy formulated by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati (1797-1855), founder of the Institute of Charity. Encouraged by Popes Pius VII, Gregory XVI, and Pius IX, he undertook a renewal of Italian philosophy, ostensibly following St. Thomas Aquinas. But the influence of Descartes, Kant, and Hegel shifted his thinking. He came to hold that the human mind is born with the idea of "being." In time it analyzes this basic idea to discover in it many other ideas, which are identical with those in the mind of God. Rosmini also taught that reason can explain the Trinity and that original sin is only a physical infection of the body. After his death forty of his propositions were condemned by Pope Leo XIII in 1887 and 1888.
All items in this dictionary are from Fr. John Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary, © Eternal Life. Used with permission.
Indeed, but Protestantism is only marginally better. For example, instead of seeing in the verses I pointed to the inescapable meaning of continuing inspiration of the Church which "abides for ever" and the promise of victory of the Church over Hell, you sidetrack to the issue of "rock", because that is where you have a template for arguing. Yet on the papacy, too, the scripture is with us: clearly by rejoicing over the confession of Peter, renaming him after Christ's own attribute, and promising the keys to heaven Christ meant to elevate Peter as a person, not some abstract faith. Luke 22:32 clearly gives Peter a role of safeguarding the faith of the other apostles. With all this you can argue around the edges but you cannot un-write the Holy Scripture. It simply doesn't teach what you imagine the teaching of Christ to be. Similarly your interpretation of John 14 verses does not match even formally what the scripture says, because in the scripture Christ promises the leadership of the Holy Spirit in the utterances of the Church "for ever", and not till such time as the New Testament is written and canonized.
When you actually can or want to coherently interact with the argument let me know.
How I converted? I was baptized as an infant into the Russian Orthodox Church; I grew up in an environment interested and sympathetic to Christianity (despite the official hostility to it in the USSR). I however, did not practice my faith and did not study it in depth. When I immigrated I discovered a Catholic Church across the park from where I lived, in Portland, Maine -- the Sacred Heart. I loved coming to Mass. I was especially impressed by how people received the Holy Community: they were not overly reverent, surely not externally so, but they came purposefully, and having eaten they looked like their purpose was accomplished. Not thinking much, I went for it myself. That began to speak to me, but I could not understand clearly what it was. After a year I asked to be converted formally, received some catechism and next Easter I became Catholic. The deeper theological knowledge and the ability to defend the Faith came along later. Peace of Christ and the presence of Christ was the first attraction. I never doubted I was in the Church where God was.
My wife, by the way, was at the time not yet my wife, -- and she was practicing Protestant. I was very curious of the Protestant religion because I expected it to be THE America's religion, and visited with her gladly. But the house was empty; the interest faded away as I listened to a variety of sermons and did not see any point being there, rather than to spend time with Ann. Naturally, she converted to Catholicism as well, -- it took her over ten years of frustration in Protestant houses of worship to do so, but I did not want to pressure her. She now wishes I were more forceful.
So yeah, in that sense, it was the experience of faith first for both of us, and that gave me the desire to know Christ's gospel. But there are many stories of conversion from reason as well. Marcus Grodi, himself a former Presbyterian minister, runs an organization helping converts, chiefly from Protestantism, and their stories tend to begin as intellectual conversions, from reason and scripture. I think the latter is to be expected from the Protestant mentality.
Totally agree. I had a close relative who was involved in one of those cults that really tries to isolate their people from any kind of outside influence. It was a nightmare getting them back into the liberty they had in Christ. There are repercussions to this day.
And of course they had all the marks of a cult:
Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Pretty interesting. Many will claim to have spoken for God. Not good enough. Many will claim to have done exorcisms for God. Nor good enough. Wonderful works for God. Not good enough. Then comes that terrifying word, "I never knew you." To people who were totally confident they were God's true representatives.
Thanks, I appreciate hearing your story. So don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. I have nothing but the best wishes for you. But I need to make this clear.
Back in post #19, you said “It is not in any way private.”
Now you’re saying, “Any decision at some point becomes internalized and in that sense private.”
So is it private, or not?
You chose to believe, based on your life experiences and knowledge up to that point. That’s what “private judgment” means to a great many Protestants, and not only is it not wrong, it is an inherent necessity of being human. That’s how we work. It’s how God made us.
Which is why, in Scripture, we are not given over to a model of blind submission to human authority. Instead, God invites us to do what?
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
And of course you remember the Berean model:
Act 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
So try the spirits, search the Scripptures. Nothing there about genuflecting to Rome. It seems the “Protestant mentality” has been an ordinary aspect of the believer’s experience from the beginning.
“The Lord quoted Scripture to refute the devil, and the latter was silenced.”
Did He quote from the New Testament?
“When you have an argument rather than ad hominem”
An ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. (Wiki)
It is not simply a statement that one does not like.
I do not reject your arguments on the basis of some irrelevant fact about you, and therefore made no ad hominem argument.
“and want to answer my questions”
Those are not questions; they are attacks pretending to be questions. I have no wish to become, like Brer Rabbit, entangled with the Tar Baby of tendentious sophistry you offer.
I do, however, reserve the right to contradict you.
“genuflecting to Rome”
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I am quite certain that any such genuflecting went the way of the Borgias some centuries ago, and was in any case political rather than spiritual in nature.
We genuflect to Our Lord, not to a city, nor an institution, nor mortal man.
As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen famously said, “There are not a hundred people in America who hate the Catholic Church—but there are millions who hate what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church teaches.”
Metaphorical, of course.
We genuflect to Our Lord, not to a city, nor an institution, nor mortal man
So you say. These pages tell a different story. Give up the late and fanciful inventions of this Rome you now disclaim, and return to the simplicity of God's written word, and I will believe you.
On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem escape from argument of the first order, a fallacy known as argument from intimidation. It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas, and instead is typically used to discredit one's opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged. Oh yes, it is ad hominem, and a doozy at that.
“These pages tell a different story.”
Only because a few protestants keep repeating things that aren’t true.
“On the contrary, opening with an unsubstantiated claim that your opponent is under satanic delusion is not argument. It is an ad hominem”
Sigh. I just provided the definition of argumentum ad hominem. You are right that my statement is not argument. It is a simple declarative sentence that conveys a thought.
“a fallacy known as argument from intimidation.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either it is an argument, or it is not. That said, there was no intent to intimidate anyone. I merely conveyed information.
“It may be what you believe, but it adds nothing to the discourse of ideas”
I am well aware of the presumption that dissent “adds nothing to the discourse of ideas.” This statement does add one thing: the only plausible explanation for the behavior of some human beings on planet Earth. Only the father of lies could spawn and fuel such a protracted campaign.
“and instead is typically used to discredit one’s opponent *personally* before real, objective argument can be engaged.”
The father of lies must have gotten a chuckle at that. I have no motivation to discredit anyone personally, because it has been demonstrated that “real, objective argument” is impossible. I seek only to say some true things once in a while.
And now I have become bored. Again.
“You Catholics believe X.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
“No, we don’t.”
“Yes, you do.”
It is as wrong-hearted as it is wrong-headed, and I think that’s the worst part of it.
No, that is not at all what happened. Finding Christ in the Eucharist and kneeling before Him was a complete surprise that did not match any prior experience.
in Scripture, we are not given over to a model of blind submission to human authority
Correct. If any Protestant read the Holy Scripture for what is written, rather than seeking what part of the faith to amputate, he would come to Christ, too:
"Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me."This is not a "human authority" speaking; a human authority instead is trying to rationalize this as symbolic. Run from these teachers: they teach death.
It's not what the Protestants say that convince me the RC allegiance is not to the written word of God per se, but to a man and a system and a place affiliated with Rome, which annalex has just demonstrated above by insisting on the late and fanciful Romish approach to the Eucharist, aka transubstantiation, which has no grounding in Scripture, not even John 6, yet is advanced as central to Christian understanding. Which no doubt now that I have dared to question it, will produce even more text that demonstrates the centrality of Rome to your apologetic.
“a fallacy known as argument from intimidation.”
You can’t have it both ways. Either it is an argument, or it is not. That said, there was no intent to intimidate anyone. I merely conveyed information.
This is a laff riot. First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of "argument from" something. It's just a standard way of discussing logical fallacies. So I have to take it you are either not familiar with this convention (which would be fine), or if you are, then I have no idea why you are playing it this way.
Second, you "merely conveying information" line is a classic. Gotta love it. Because in the first place, it's not information. It's your belief. Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done:
Pro 26:18 Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death,
Pro 26:19 Is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "I was only joking!"
So if you really want to have serious discussion, you will find it is not only possible but desirable to avoid ad hominem.
I have a response, but must leave for work. Talk to you later.
Rome is a city in Italy. What we have is not “allegiance to Rome” but authentic Christian faith in which there is no Jew, no Greek, no American and no Roman. You mean to say we obey the Vicar of Christ who currently resides in the Vatican. We do. His role as a successor of Peter is rather clear from the bible. He “converts the brethren” and with the bishop “rules the Church of God”. Your problem is not Rome,but authentic and well informed Catholic Christianity.
“Any reasonable reader”
Sorry, but you’re not in a position to be making statements about what reasonable people would or would not do.
“understand the ad hominem aspect of accusing someone directly and personally of satanic delusion”
When people think there is no connection between constant prevarication and the work of Satan, I don’t much care for their opinions.
“First, you do understand that pretty much ALL the non-arguments described as fallacies take the form of “argument from” something.”
Whereas you do not understand that they are not “non-arguments,” but rather invalid arguments, in that they rest on logical fallacies. Invalid, but still arguments.
“Because in the first place, it’s not information. It’s your belief.”
In that it is correct, it is information.
“Second, it is too easy to say you meant nothing by it, after the damage is done”
I never said I meant nothing by it. I meant a lot by it. I meant exactly what I said.
“And says, “I was only joking!”
Never said it; never implied it.
Now, I’m going to have to shine you on. You’re just not up to discussing issues at an intellectually adequate level.
What manner is absurdity is that? "Inescapable meaning!?" Rather, i see that it is only inescapable according to the Romanized mind that this and other texts must say what you assert, including the Eucharist being the body and blood of Christ and necessary for salvation. And which effectively disallows most all Prots from being saved, as they who do not see Scripture teaching the Catholic Real Presence.
And thus the issue remains that of interpretative authority. We can argue Scripture till the cows come home on the meaning of Scripture texts, and we have , but as Scripture can only support Rome and never contradict her, and as it cannot be the RC basis for assurance (unless evangelicals are right and the infallible magisterium is not what provides that), and as RCs are bond to defend Rome, then the real issue is the logic that sees promises of Divine guidance and presence as meaning a perpetual infallible magisterium.
RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium, under the premise that such is necessary for determination and preservation of Truth, and which you see being fulfilled in Rome being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, thus she is that perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium, and infallibly definers herself as being so and worthy of implicit assent of faith. And by this RCs have assurance and all dissenters from Rome are cooked.
But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture, nor is what is promised, while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.
However, despite the firewall that automatically must reject anything that contradicts Rome (though some RC defenders do so), i did briefly deal with your proffered proof texts, and focusing on the meaning of "the rock" was no sidetrack at all, but one that RCs major on for good reason. For the meaning of "rock," is the critical issue since otherwise you can simply have a promise that the church, as the body of Christ, will overcome the gates of Hell, versus only the Catholic church being the body of Christ, or the only valid visible manifestation of this.
Yet on the papacy, too, the scripture is with us: clearly by rejoicing over the confession of Peter, renaming him after Christ's own attribute, and promising the keys to heaven Christ meant to elevate Peter as a person, not some abstract faith.
The massive and manifest problem is that the extrapolative RC imagination on what this elevation meant simply does not correspond to what Scripture nor even what modern researchers find in early church history.
I can elaborate on this but when a intractable commitment to Rome that compels texts to inescapably defend her, then any and all evidence to contrary must be dismissed.
Luke 22:32 clearly gives Peter a role of safeguarding the faith of the other apostles.
That is just another example of the extrapolative RC imagination. Somehow the prayer that the faith of the street-level leader among brethren would persevere, and strengthen his brethren, means Peter was The exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from in Rome.
But which is contrary to what a more comprehensive examination of Scripture reveals, which is too much to post here.
Similarly your interpretation of John 14 verses does not match even formally what the scripture says, because in the scripture Christ promises the leadership of the Holy Spirit in the utterances of the Church "for ever", and not till such time as the New Testament is written and canonized.
This again is the RC imagination at work. What Jn. 14 promises, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (John 14:16) is promised and given to all believers, (Jn. 7:38; Eph. 1:13) and nowhere no way promises or requires a perpetual infallible magisterium. And by reliance upon such presumption error has resulted recalcitrant preservation of errors of tradition, exposed by the assured and established word of God, the Scriptures, in which see fulfillment of the promise of the Lord to lead into all Truth.
We don't know who is and is not saved, for we are saved by our works and the intention of imitating Christ that accompany them. But as a general rule, a direct denial of words of the Gospel destroys your souls, yes.
RCs see texts such as Mt. 16:18 and Jn. 14:16 as promising a perpetual infallible authoritative magisterium
Yes, except it is not "text" that promise but rather Christ has promised exactly that, and I, a Christian, believe Him.
But such an ecclesiastical magisterium was not how writings and men of God were established as being so in Scripture
You mean, Christ did not say what is written, or said it without meaning it, or what?
while Scripture is not even determinative for an RC.
The Holy Scripture records words spoken by Christ, in this case, or otherwise words spoken by the Church and her Builder through her prelates and saints. That is authoritative.
For the meaning of "rock," is the critical issue since otherwise you can simply have a promise that the church, as the body of Christ, will overcome the gates of Hell, versus only the Catholic church being the body of Christ, or the only valid visible manifestation of this.
If the words "Gates of Hell shall not prevail over the Church I shall build" (paraphrasing) were said in some different context you could argue whatever that context would allow. You still would have to explain how anything or anybody could prevail or not prevail over a community of all Christians, or else you are back to "Church" meaning not a collective of people but an institution that survives or doesn't as an institution. Further, you would still have to note that that institution is thought of by Jesus as a single one, not several or many -- because in the latter case He would have to somehow define how His promise would apply to each of them singly.
But we don't have to imagine the scripture that was not written since we have Matthew 16 where the promise comes in a context. The context is not just the naming of Simon Bar Jona "Rock" but also the promise of "keys to heaven", the attestation that God revealed to Peter his confession, and the promise that the infallible, invincible Church will be built on the very "rock" that Peter is being named after; that, lastly, Peter can legislate on earth and his legislation will be binding in heaven.
Now, "rock" is indeed a metaphor for God everywhere in scripture. Your opinion seems to be that Jesus either did not know that, or did not mean that (that Protestant Jesus often has no clue what He is talking about, so that wouldn't be the first or the last incident). This is a good example of Protestant defects of faith. I prefer to think that Jesus knew what he was doing and meant to give Bar-Jona this divinizing name, because the renaming was in the context of other kind of promises, authorizations and praises given Peter. It is a single package and the package describes pretty much an invincible Church with an infallible Pope in it. Nor is it a single episode: in Luke 22:31 Christ predicts that it is Peter whose faith will infallibly convert others during difficult times.
Another way of twisting and ultimately denying scripture is to pretend that somehow the person of Bar-Jona is not really there: that the praise goes to abstract faith, that rock is only the fundament but never a person with that name, that the keys were promised but not delivered, that the legislative authority being also with the Church (in Matthew 18:18) cannot be with Peter (another case of a befuddled Protestant Christ), that none of that can possibly apply to anything or anyone today because the authority of Peter died with Peter. Spare the childishness. Read the Scripture every once in a while like God means what He says. You will feel better.
Embarrassing ad hominem. You woo us with insults? Is that how you came to believe what you do? It astonishes me.
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.