Replies

Where to begin?

WVKayaker who having called Catholics “cultists,” now keeps repeating his blah, blah…”

Elise can’t seem to distinguish between the personal lives of Popes and Catholic doctrine. Any reference to reputed Protestant and Evangelical theologians who convert to Catholicism is the subject of lampoon. Instead ridicule operates as a substitute for why these individuals, who never imagined they would ever convert to Catholicism, actually did so. Never mind they did so only after extended years of research and study at the university level.

Of course this is something beyond the expectations of Bible Christianity as we can see from an analysis of their comments below.

CynicalBear writes what must be expected from shallow Bible Christians who dare swim into the deep waters of theological scholarship. For them, it is a frightening experience. Thus for him all this is nothing but “accolades to intelligentsia.”

Daniel1212 is more colorful. For him these theologians are nothing but “bloviating bombast,” and then goes on to add it is “akin to the sneer of the blind learned chief priests and Pharisees in response to the judgment of common folk to the preaching of a certain itinerant Preacher.”

It is unclear whether his reference is to theologians in general (including the early Church fathers); or only the ones who agree with him (since he does reference quite a few of them in his own post) or as is presumably the case, only Catholic theologians and those eminent Protestant and Evangelical theologians who converted to Catholicism.

Daniel1212 would therefore aggregate Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict “to the sneer of the blind learned chief priests and Pharisees.”

Iscool is more direct. He says: “they are all mistaken.” To Iscool, theologians who converted to Catholicism lie. And by extension so too would be the early Church fathers since they extensively rely on their writings.

As early as 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

“Where the bishop is present, let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).

In short it is only “Iscool’s” own understanding of scripture (the oral Word of God in John 21: 25 doesn’t count for anything) that is “authoritative.” Or else why hold onto his “own” view if this too is questionable?

By now it should become readily apparent that that if these folks represent a sample of Bible Christian thinking we can besides comprehending, be of charitable disposition to the idiosyncrasies of their progeny. We can include in this roster of those claiming scriptural theology as Bible Christians such luminaries as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joel Osteen, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Moonies, and Billy Graham.

They all cut and snip their scriptural authority from the same cloth but end up in a hit parade wearing different types, forms, and colors of shepard’s clothing:

Send in the clowns.

Hang the theologians, the early Church fathers included. Let’s get on with the show.
No need for Petrine authority, and every need to abandon what the early Church fathers believed in the Great Commission given to Peter and his successors in Matthew 28:19 to “Go forth and teach…”

Among all the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation that began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of offshoots off offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any other institution in history.

But for Bible Christians there is no “teach” ONE truth. As Bible Christians would have it “the Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating.”

Hang all the theologians!

Bible Christians are giving us a News-Flash:

Christ Himself made a colossal blunder in establish ONE Church and confining that authority to Peter and His successors entrusting them with His Divine Power. For Bible Christians all this is “blah, blah blah,” including Matthew 16:19:

“And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

These keys were not given to Daniel1212 and WVKayayker, or Elsie, or Iscool any more than they were given to David Koresh or Joel Osteen or Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The early Church fathers understood this. But why bother

Hang all the theologians!

Bible Christians are quite comfortable with “Christianity Lite.” No need for the Eucharist, no need for the Mass, no need for Marian dogmas, no need for the sacraments, and no need to venerate the saints.

Instead, read passages from scripture, have TD Jakes or Joel Osteen and his wife do their own thing and give “their” own interpretation, throw in some light entertainment, and pass the plate.

You ask how this Tomfoolery is justified, and Bible Christians would reach down into the shallowest of the shallow waters of exegesis and toss out a quote from Matthew 18:20 “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”

They appear to have no clue in the meaning of the phrase “in my name.” That royal phrase not only means based on all His teachings, it gathers force from the prior verses:

“If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.”

Let’s not tax too much the intellect of our Bible Christians here. It’s Christianity Lite, no matter what. So let’s move on with their show.

The absurdity of these Bible Christians are in their fullest display when in an attempt to devalue the role of Mary in salvation they would go so far as to rewrite scripture itself. Daniel 1212 does this by borrowing from what appears to be from an anti-Catholic blog. For emphasis he adds an accompaniment to his posting of an animated cartoon. He writes:

“The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28.”

Here’s Luke 1:28 based on the Douay Reims version: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

But that’s not all. Daniel1212 now takes on the role of “theologian” having earlier sneered at theologians. After heaping scorn on the “bloviating bombast” of scholars, he takes on their mantle and we see an emperor, a pretender to the throne of theologian without clothes. This is exactly what occurs when Bible Christians try practicing their theological backstrokes in deep waters. They must be spoken to with animated cartoons.

Even dead theologians would rise in protest at Daniel’s1212’s “literal” scriptural illiteracy.

aMoreperfectunion demands we show him a single “deep fact or piece of evidence” that Bible Christians swim as “shallow fish in shallow waters.” We just gave him one courtesy of Daniel1212.

aMoreperfectunion was earlier reminded by me that Paul’s listeners, never had that blinding ignorance to inquire from him as to “what” those traditions were, or to demand of him that he provide them all a “list” of such traditions or insist that he “write” down these traditions.”

aMoreperfectunion replies: “Obviously, they knew what the traditions were that Paul referred to.”

But he never takes the next step to then tell us why it was so “obvious” and if obvious “what” those obvious traditions are or at what point those traditions “ceased” to be obvious. Swimming in shallow waters?

However, when it comes to putting together a string of pearls, Editor-Surveyor takes the cake.

Editor-Surveyor throws this out this gem:

“Dreams and visions need interpretation; the word of God is not subject thereto.”

Hang the theologians, hang St. Irenaeus; (Oh, silly me. No need for hanging by today’s heretics, he was executed by the heretics of his time for preaching the Church’s teaching that Christ was both true God and true Man); hang all the early Church Fathers.

He, Editor-Surveyor needs no interpretation on the “Word” of God.

I suspect even Bible Christians would feel embarrassed by this errant nonsense but not all.

DeprogramLiberalism is not far behind. When he is not bemoaning that his texts are being “twisted” or whatever, he writes this:

“No ‘interpretation’ is definitive. Scripture is understood by the ‘reasoning of Christ.’”

If your eyes popped out, please read again. If needed put your eyeglasses on. That’s exactly what he says. No twisting here.

Hang the theologians! Oh, but DeprogramLiberalism goes one more and jumps the shark.

Ponder this again, please. “Scripture is understood by the reasoning of Christ.”

Cut it out and paste it over your mattress headboard, use it as a bumper sticker, whatever.

The Great Commission given to Peter: “Go forth and teach….” no longer matters.

The “reasoning of Christ” is self-evident. No need for any teaching. He keeps good company with Iscool.

So when the Christ says: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church...” these Bible Christians would perhaps answer Him: “We need no church,” “We need no human institution,” “We need no Petrine authority.”

It has been said of Bible Christianity, that it is so shallow that a paper boat will not upon its waters. Fortyseven captures this well when he writes:

“The people you are ‘dialoging’ with refuse to acknowledge that indeed, they use their own interpretation (opinion) of Scripture as ‘evidence’ of their position.”

But sadly, this logic is too heavy to float on the waters they swim in. It’s a point I have incessantly made since my first posting on this thread.

Bible Christianity by its own terms is quicksand. Once you step on it you are pulled deeper. It’s just like a deep-water theological rip tide that pulls you in, and when you resist, you drown.

I wish dissecting the lamentable state of Bible Christianity were all fun. But it is not so.

I agree this much. When all is said and done they are our brothers and sisters even when “not in full communion with the Church” as Daniel 1212 once appeared to quote with approval Benedict’s magnum opus on “Dominus Iesus.” We can only pray they’d recite the Catholic Credo in time to come.

I think we have all said enough.

Good night all.

Here’s a link to Dominus Iesus. It would take a whole day of careful reading to appreciate its depth and brilliance. It is for good reason that Benedict has been called the theological Einstein of our times.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html