Church still attracting converts: CHN at record levels

The Wanderer ^ | 10/10/02 | Paul Likoudis

[xzins]

Al, you know abortion isn't in there. Even THEY know it isn't in there.

They misused it and you know it. There's a range of reasonable answers which are possible. Once one goes outside the range, then I can see for myself what's happened.

Good thing to know. Glad we have a written document.

[AlguyA]

"Glad we have a written document."

And exactly how has that written document helped the 40 million innocents whose lives have been ended by abortion?

[xzins]

By my knowing it wasn't written there; that I don't have to accept that to be a good american; that it's the result of a power play by a deceiver enemy. Al you seem like A good Guy. But on this one, you seem to be arguing we throw out the Constitution.

[pseudo-justin]

Well, your standards might or might not mean something. I, however, am talking about ME.

I am talking about you too, and I am wondering why you do not recognize that the exegetical methods you have internalized from your Protestant tradition has implications for whether you find any scriptural proofs concering Marian doctrines convincing. Have you read this book:

Catholic for a Reason II: Scripture and the Mystery of the Mother of God by Leon Suprenant Jr. (Editor), Beth Hart (Illustrator).

It is available through amazon.com

Could you tell me what you do not find convincing about these particular arguments? This book in particular should be of interest to you, because most if not all of the contributors are minister-converts of the sort discussed in the article posted on this thread. What exactly is unconvincing about, say, Revelation 12? All I am asking is for you to identify the source of the unconvincingness of the arguments that have been presented to you. I really would like to know for future reference.

As for the questions about the consitution, Congress, and majority rule, you have already drawn a false analogy. As I pointed out earlier, many Protestants have this image of the Catholic Church such that Scripture is not a chief part of the life of the Chruch Like the bible fell out of the sky in the sixteenth century and people first began reading it--and only Protestants began reading it of course. This is just a false analogy . The Catholic Church is not living without Scripture, not forming its doctrines without Scripture, not lacking in a an army of people who are reading reflecting, and contemplating Scripture. That you would even draw such an analogy shows that you imagine the Church to be a Scriptureless entity. Do you have any idea how deeply Scriputre figures into the Church's teachings? Just look at any systematic textbook on Catholic dogma. Better yet, look at the Catechism. It is saturated with Scripture from the first paragraph to the last. To even draw the analogy that you have drawn makes it look like we do not care for Scripture, we have nothing but arbitrary human judgment to go on, that the Bishops are not beholden to the Scripture, and that is just plain false.

[xzins]

Nope, but I just finishe "Hail Holy Queen" by Scott Hahn. He's down my alley. A protestant (as per this thread) who turned to the other side. I thought if anyone could explain it, he could.

But all he gave were arguments....not proof.

I didn't form a false analogy with the Constitution, because I didn't say Catholics weren't informed by the Holy Scriptures. I do NOT believe they aren't informed by them. Hahn's writings that I've read are full of them.

We consider them decisively authoritative OVER the church. You consider the Church decisively authoritative OVER the scripture. I've seen (and been a part of) the discussions on some of these threads on that subject.

My argument is that the scriptures are the CLEAR apostolic authority extant in the world today. The apostles always had authority over the church. Therefore, the writings of the apostles have priority over the church.

Others have had arguments that have attempted to dissuade me from that conclusion, but none have had arguments that I found as persuasive.

In any case, you've been a fair discussion partner. Do you realize we have YELLED at or attempted to DEMONIZE each other even once.

[Tantumergo]

"But all he gave were arguments....not proof."

What constitutes proof for you if not arguments?

[xzins]

Proof is "case closed" information.

Other than that there are arguments. He has his. I have mine. I weight them and then weigh them.

I've found no reason to change what I believe after that process.

"Arguments" have a "probability" of being correct. Proof is a certainty of correctness. Does that help?

[Tantumergo]

""Arguments" have a "probability" of being correct. Proof is a certainty of correctness."

Is not "certainty" a subjective state of mind?

If one could derive certainty from Scripture alone then there would be no disagreement as to its meaning.

[pegleg]

excuses, excuses. The past is over, isn't it. The future starts now. You're not gonna do some medieval poor guy and favor by selling the gold staff he paid for with his poverty.

You just don't get it do you? If you would reflect on the culture then and contrast it with our current culture a light may come on. If you do that and don't get my point, you are truly clueless.

[xzins]

Well, some things are not subjective and are absolute fact in space/time. For example, I absolutely was born on a particular day. It is also a fact that if my airplane runs out of gas while I'm in the air that it will come down to the ground shortly thereafter.

Doctrinal fact is a different animal, isn't it? We almost need a continuum to help us ascertain where WE stand on certain things being in the realm of fact rather than assumption. Let 10 be a certain fact. Let 0 be a wild, totally unsupportable assumption.

Where would you place "the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ?" I think the testimony of scripture and the church is certain on this one. It gets a 10.

Where would you place "the full inspiration of scripture by God?" I would give it a 10.

Where would you place "the visit of Jesus to the New World ancestors of mormonism?" I would give it a big fat ZERO (0).

I'm sure you see the process.

Out of curiosity where would you place "the trinity?"

[xzins]

Culture doesn't count with Jesus.

He didn't pick women to be elders because he didn't want to. Not because the "culture" made him nervous.

He wouldn't smile on misusing God's money whether it was 1st century Judaism (Ananias & Saphira), 15th century Europe (gold & gem-studded scepters), or 21st century Boston (legal payments to victims of abuse; huge expenses for crystal cathedrals; ripping off of retirees in Jim Bakker retirement scams.)

I am not clueless. I'm actually rather friendly and have been so throughout.

[Codie]

He didn't pick women to be elders because he didn't want to.

How do you know that?

[pegleg]

I'm actually rather friendly and have been so throughout.

Ok

You consider the Church decisively authoritative OVER the scripture.

So which came first, the Church or the New Testament?

[xzins]

Because he was courageous. If he'd wanted to, he would have. Besides, the fact that he didn't is preliminary evidence that he didn't want to. After all, he was God.

After all, his courage and conviction enabled him to go to a cross he knew would happen to him.

[xzins]

The Apostles came first. Their testimony precedes the Church and was the accepted rule over the church. Their writings ARE their testimony.

After their deaths, the believers VERIFIED those writings that were the apostles. The believers did NOT write those writings.

Once full body of the word of the apostles was identified, the believers had to become subject to the testimony of the apostles.

[Codie]

Perhaps he knew what would happen if women were placed in authority over men.JMHO.

[pegleg]

The Apostles came first. Their testimony precedes the Church and was the accepted rule over the church. Their writings ARE their testimony.

What Church?

[Nubbin]

Maybe when someone gives me a Biblically-sound reason to attempt to communicate with Mary or win her favor, I'll give the Catholic Church a second look. But until then, I will remain faithful to the Word and nothing else.

Try this situation on. You fall in love with a wonderful man. He wants you to meet his mother and father; introduce you to his brothers, sisters, cousins, favorite uncle, etc. I suppose you would refuse him on the grounds that you only "love him" and you don't need all those other people? Will meeting and making room in your live for his family somehow dilute the "personal" nature of your relationship with your beloved? Of course not.

That is what the protestant refusal to get to know the Blessed Mother and the Saints is like to me.

[xzins]

Whatever the reason(s), he didn't do it.

Nothing wrong with your idea, imho. Hey, Codie, are you male or female? (I'm male) It makes a difference on this particular issue. The only reason I ask.

[xzins]

Do you mean denomination???