Posted on 03/21/2015 4:27:12 PM PDT by NYer
From The Salem News in Massachusetts:
If the deacon is a different sort of religious figure for the church, then Chuck Hall, 62, is a different sort of deacon. He came of age as an evangelical Protestant. Only slowly did he gravitate toward conversion, drawn by, of all things, the priest abuse scandals.
As one damaging headline followed another, he sensed an imbalance in the treatment of the church. Moreover, he saw the Roman church as at the very foundation of Christianity. While he never faulted the press for following the story, the fierce hostility brought on by the scandals seemed to him an attack on Christianity itself.
“It made me go back and study some church history. … I let the church speak for itself,” he said. The more he studied and understood, the more he began to feel that the conflicts always cited between Protestants and Catholics were overdrawn: “‘Do you worship Mary?’ No.”
The lessons of inclusion brought by Vatican II, the “inspirational” writings of G. K. Chesterton, also a convert, and the courage of Pope John Paul II eased Hall’s path.
“I went to my first Mass,” he said. The very interior of the church shouted of difference — the stained glass, the bright colors of the priest’s vestments, the statuary.
“A lot of things about being Catholic take some getting used to,” he laughed. But Hall began to see the beauty in these things and, sitting recently in the bright, soaring interior of St. John the Baptist, he smiled at the thought that God can be seen in such beauty.
“Art is a great gift,” he said. “The creative life is when we most imitate God.”
There is an added irony in Hall’s attraction to Catholicism. When he married 25 years ago, his wife, Mary, was teaching the Catholic catechism. As he was drawn toward her religion, however, she was drifting away. She currently worships in the Anglican church. Yet, he says, “She has been supportive of everything I’ve wanted to do.” They have no children.
The article has much more on deacons. Check it out.
Yep. And that is how the Great Deceiver pulled off his best work ever.
I’m not a fan of the deaconate; it should be reserved as one of the steps towards the priesthood. As these guys age and are widowed, some want out so they can re-marry. It just seems to be a role where men can “have it all” (dress like a priest while they have a family); women resent it, and are accommodated by getting to play “priestess” - defiling the Eucharist by distributing It.
Defenders point to the early Church for justification; if that is the case then let’s go back to those days and allow Latin Rite priest to marry as their Eastern Catholic brethren do.
By his own admission the guy was drawn by all of the outward trappings and rituals.
I was thinking the same thing as I read that.
You want reasonable objection to the "church". A major one would be that it's primarily pagan. The guy in this article was drawn to the pagan aspects.
My response was "He'll be back" because I felt that if is "conversion" story was as genuine as he says it is -- that is, if the scriptures did begin to come alive to him -- it would be inevitable that he'd return to the Church, despite his currently naive reading of them.
I have been known to occasionally be a bit more sarcastic than that, perhaps not quite as respectful as I should be, but never malevolent or arrogant or ignorant or seething as the attack posts on Catholic threads routinely are.
The biggest challenge for me is defending the Holy Father. I think he is attacked a little less by "Catholic" posters than by anyone else, but not much less.
There is none. You're simply rendering an opinion. Are you too blind to see that?
You know what goes on in this man's heart? You know even less about about Catholic doctrine.
And that would be found in scripture where?
My opinion? I think not.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.[Cardinal Newman - Development of Christian Doctrine, pg 373] And you didn't think the Catholic Church incorporates paganism?
The Catholic Church sanctifies pagans.
Why don't you ask the Pharisees?
You proabably mean the pejorative denotation. A constitutionalist, or someone who upholds the Constitution, is also a fundamentalist.
A dogmatist typically is someone who is rude about holding opinions without reason.
LOL! No they don't. God calls pagans to repent and turn from their pagan ways. He also said specifically to not incorporate that they did in worship of Him.
Deuteronomy 12:30 Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. 31 Thou shalt not do so unto the LORD thy God:
The word repent doesn't mean keep doing what your doing just call it something different.
AKA Catholics. So where is it found in scripture?
Your comment: “Because the Roman Catholic cult teaches that he can pray to idols and dead people!
The heretics are busy spreading erroneous information.
St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: “a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas”. “The right Christian faith consists in giving one’s voluntary assent to Christ in all that truly belongs to His teaching. There are, therefore, two ways of deviating from Christianity: the one by refusing to believe in Christ Himself, which is the way of infidelity, common to Pagans and Jews; the other by restricting belief to certain points of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure, which is the way of heretics. The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief by the Church. The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval. The heretical tenets may be ignorance of the true creed, erroneous judgment, imperfect apprehension and comprehension of dogmas: in none of these does the will play an appreciable part, wherefore one of the necessary conditions of sinfulness—free choice—is wanting and such heresy is merely objective, or material. On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church. The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one’s own insight; the illusions of religious zeal; the allurements of political or ecclesiastical power; the ties of material interests and personal status; and perhaps others more dishonourable. Heresy thus willed is imputable to the subject and carries with it a varying degree of guilt; it is called formal, because to the material error it adds the informative element of “freely willed”.
Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions. Considering that the human intellect can assent only to truth, real or apparent, studied pertinacity — as distinct from wanton opposition — supposes a firm subjective conviction which may be sufficient to inform the conscience and create “good faith”. Such firm convictions result either from circumstances over which the heretic has no control or from intellectual delinquencies in themselves more or less voluntary and imputable. A man born and nurtured in heretical surroundings may live and die without ever having a doubt as to the truth of his creed. On the other hand a born Catholic may allow himself to drift into whirls of anti-Catholic thought from which no doctrinal authority can rescue him, and where his mind becomes incrusted with convictions, or considerations sufficiently powerful to overlay his Catholic conscience. It is not for man, but for Him who searcheth the mind and heart, to sit in judgment on the guilt which attaches to an heretical conscience.
“(”Not Saved” is “Not Saved”, and you are not the judge of that for anybody, nor will you ever be!)”
Perhaps he’s related to Bubba Clinton and is not sure what the word is means.
Looks like it was clear enough.
Ooh. That’ll leave a mark.
Really. If that’s all you have, you must not have much. If he’s gone from professing salvation as an evangelical to accepting the apostasy and heresy of the Roman Catholic Cult, then his fruits are pretty obvious: were be to have had true saving faith, he would have never dreamt of renouncing the truth and accepting the lies of Rome.
I wasn’t reading his mind; I recognize him by his fruits. He couldn’t have been saved then, because he surely isn’t now.
Hoss
There is none. You're simply rendering an opinion. Are you too blind to see that? You know what goes on in this man's heart? You know even less about about Catholic doctrine.
A reasonable objection to the teaching on Mary being a perpetual virgin.
In the Greek, Luke uses the phrase τὸν υἱὸν αὐτῆς τὸν πρωτότοκον, translated literally as the son of her, the firstborn. In English we would say, her firstborn son.
The key word in this section is πρωτότοκον (prototokos). It means first, pre-eminent; the first among others. It allows for other children to be born to Mary.
Contrast this with John 3:16 where John uses the Greek Υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ, literally Son the only begotten.
The key word is μονογενῆ (monogenes). It means one and only; one of a class.
We know this is the correct description of Jesus as He is the only Son of God.
However, He is not the only son of Mary. Recall that Luke was a physician who by his own account researched a lot so we would have an accurate account of what happened.
If Luke wanted to indicate Mary had only one child he would have used the phrase John did.
In reading the accounts where the brothers and sisters of Jesus are mentioned we need to keep the verses in context.
We have the account of Paul in Galatians where he noted he met James, the Lord's brother among others.
These are not cousins of Jesus as the word cousin, ἀνεψιός, is used only in reference to Barnabas's cousin Mark. As Paul had traveled with Barnabas so he would know if he was a cousin or a brother or other relative.
The key to all of this is allowing the Word to interpret the Word. Understanding the Greek also helps.
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.