Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part VI: The Biblical Reality
Cor ad cor loquitur ^ | 16 November 2004 | Al Kresta/Dave Armstrong

Posted on 09/06/2007 3:27:02 PM PDT by annalex

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 next last
The concluding part VI of several part series on Al Kresta's journey. Previous:

Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part III: Tradition and Church
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part V: The Catholics and the Pope
1 posted on 09/06/2007 3:27:06 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; NYer; Romulus; jo kus; Kolokotronis; kosta50; Forest Keeper; Alex Murphy; HarleyD; ...

Thank you for your comments on this series and your company.


2 posted on 09/06/2007 3:34:45 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

It really comes down to what the Bible says.

The Catholic church does not have the corner on the truth.


3 posted on 09/06/2007 3:40:59 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Sure she does, she is the pillar and foundation of it.


4 posted on 09/06/2007 4:02:15 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Bookmark. Thanks for posting.


5 posted on 09/06/2007 4:12:24 PM PDT by Sergio (If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“Sure she does, she is the pillar and foundation of it.”

Ummmm, I do believe that would be JESUS CHRIST as the foundation of the church.


6 posted on 09/06/2007 4:22:16 PM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
The Catholic church does not have the corner on the truth.

Truth exists elsewhere, but the fullness of truth that God has revealed to man is found within the teachings of the Catholic Church. Vatican 2 stated that in Lumen Gentium.

Regards

7 posted on 09/06/2007 4:38:18 PM PDT by jo kus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Hopefully I got rid of the repeats here:

Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part VI: The Biblical Reality (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part V: The Catholics and the Pope(Al Kresta)
The Hail Mary of a Protestant (A true story)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part IV: Crucifix and Altar(Al Kresta)

Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part III: Tradition and Church (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part II: Doubts (Al Kresta)
Why I Returned to the Catholic Church. Part I: Darkness(Al Kresta)
Conversion Story - Matt Enloe (former Baptist) [prepare to be amazed!]
THE ORTHODOX REVIVAL IN RUSSIA

Conversion Story - David Finkelstein (former Jew)
Conversion Story - John Weidner (former Evangelical)
12 Reasons I Joined the Catholic Church
Conversion Story - Tom Hunt
The Tide Is Turning Toward Catholicism: The Converts

John Calvin Made Me Catholic
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary
Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
From Calvinist to Catholic

A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church
Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics

Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge

Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome
Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi

Why Converts Choose Catholicism
Journey Home - May 21 - Neil Babcox (former Presbyterian) - A minister encounters Mary

Going Catholic - Six journeys to Rome
My (Imminent) Reception into the Roman Catholic Church
From Calvinist to Catholic
A Convert's Pilgrimage [Christopher Cuddy]
From Pastor to Parishioner: My Love for Christ Led Me Home (to the Catholic Church) [Drake McCalister]
Lutheran professor of philosophy prepares to enter Catholic Church

Patty Bonds (former Baptist and sister of Dr. James White) to appear on The Journey Home - May 7
Pastor and Flock Become Catholics
The journey back - Dr. Beckwith explains his reasons for returning to the Catholic Church
Famous Homosexual Italian Author Returned to the Church Before Dying of AIDS
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church

Catholic Converts - Stephen K. Ray (former Evangelical)
Catholic Converts - Malcolm Muggeridge
Catholic Converts - Richard John Neuhaus
Catholic Converts - Avery Cardinal Dulles
Catholic Converts - Israel (Eugenio) Zolli - Chief Rabbi of Rome

Catholic Converts - Robert H. Bork , American Jurist (Catholic Caucus)
Catholic Converts - Marcus Grodi
Why Converts Choose Catholicism
How I led Catholics Out of the Church [Steve Wood]
The Scott Hahn Conversion Story
FORMER PENTECOSTAL RELATES MIRACLE THAT OCCURRED WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD

Conversion Story - Rusty Tisdale (former Pentecostal)

8 posted on 09/06/2007 4:46:39 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo; ConservativeMind
JESUS CHRIST as the foundation of the church.

The original question is concerning the truth in relation to the Church, and I was quoting 1 Timothy 3:15.

9 posted on 09/06/2007 4:51:30 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
The surpassing brevity of your post left it ambiguous. Are you saying (A) that the Bible says the Catholic church does not have a corner on the truth or are you saying (B)(1) the Bible is central and (2) The Catholic Church does not have a corner on the truth.

In some sense, I would entertain (B)(2). We do not have a corner on Jesus, we think Jesus has a corner on us. But maybe I don't know what you mean by having a corner. It's not that the other groups of professing Christians don't know anything at all. It's not that a two seed in the spirit baptized by fire, foot-washin', snake-handlin', poison drinkin' person is never going to receive the grace to repent and to believe the Gospel or that if he should do so Jesus will ignore him. We're not saying that. God is very generous with ALL of us.

But I do think that those who have preserved that pesky apostolic succession and intend the sacraments as they semper, ubique, et ab omnibus have been intended have what Benedict XVI calls "the means of grace".

I think anyone who witnessed the backing and forthing here on FR about what the Scriptures say would be hard pressed to say that without an authoritative "school", as you might say, of interpretation, the scriptures may be what it all comes down to, but agreement about what they say is hard to come by.

10 posted on 09/06/2007 5:36:13 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“If the point is that you need a visible display of unity for the work of evangelism to have lasting success, how can you have the Russians and the Greeks fighting with one another all the time?”

Huh? There is far far less theological disagreement between Russian and Greek Orthodox (in fact there is none)than between say Irish and French Roman Catholics, let alone between say Belgian and Polish ones. What is this person talking about?

“The laxity on divorce . . . I heard a saying recently that “your doctrine of ecclesiology will affect your doctrine of marriage, or vice versa.” If you believe in divorce, then you believe in the Reformation, because you believe that Christ will divorce part of His Body. If you believe that the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church, is indivisible, then you will believe that (among Christians, anyway) marriage is indivisible. There should be no divorce. And I think that the Orthodox are lax in that area.”

Well, the author is entitled to his own beliefs about Orthodoxy and the permissability of divorce. He is not entitled to his own version of history. The exercise of economia by hierarchs in allowing remarriage after divorce precedes the Reformation by at least 800 years. Similarly, he is not entitled to impose on Orthodoxy a distinctly Western and Roman understanding of the sacraments, marriage in particular. If he wants to say that he dismisses Orthodoxy because it doesn’t hold to Roman notions about the nature of marriage, he should simply say so.

“I think that they’re too ethnic - that’s probably due to a type of caesaropapism, and that their views of culture don’t seem to work out very well.”

What a thoroughly white bread remark this one is! Its pretty clear to me that the author didn’t grow up around immigrant Catholic communities, where the Irish, Polish, Italian, French, etc ethnicity of the parish counted for just as much as the “Greek” or “Russian” did in the Orthodox ones, maybe more!

Pretty sorry piece, Alex!


11 posted on 09/06/2007 6:06:08 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jo kus
...the fullness of truth that God has revealed to man is found within the teachings of the Catholic Church. Vatican 2 stated that in Lumen Gentium.

That is circular reasoning...the Catholic Church proclaims it is the only one who has the truth!

12 posted on 09/06/2007 6:26:53 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
But there are singificant differences between Orthodox jusridictions: lack of intercommunion, diverse liturgical calendars, this kind of thing. They are not theological, but he is not talking theology, he is speaking of visible unity. (I can intrioduce you to someone who believes, with HOCNA, that calendar distinctions are theologically critical, too).

Regarding divorce, -- more accurately, he should be talking about remarriage after divorce and not divorce itself, -- he is coming from a Sola Scriptura worldview, and therefore the economia considerations, or historical considerations, would not be acceptable to him, while literal reading of Christ's teaching on remarriage would be very appealing.

I am sure one can defend the Orthodox positions on each count, but this is a personal conversion story, and these things were a factor for him.

13 posted on 09/06/2007 6:28:20 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: annalex

The pillar and foundation of truth does not build mosques and kiss the Koran.


14 posted on 09/06/2007 6:31:10 PM PDT by Old_Mil (Rudy = Hillary, Fred = Dole, Romney = Kerry, McCain = Crazy. No Thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

Build mosques?


15 posted on 09/06/2007 6:38:46 PM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo

And you would be right also. The Catholic Church, who canonized the Bible, is the pillar and foundation for the Body of Christ on Earth made up of His believers.


16 posted on 09/06/2007 6:43:16 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tiki

“And you would be right also. The Catholic Church, who canonized the Bible, is the pillar and foundation for the Body of Christ on Earth made up of His believers.”

So why are some believers excluded?


17 posted on 09/06/2007 7:26:06 PM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo

They are only excluded by their own choice. There is only one church, it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Non-Catholic Christians aren’t considered to have an inferior faith but they join themselves to organizations which cannot be Church because there is only one, established by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit and it will prevail until the end of time.


18 posted on 09/06/2007 10:25:28 PM PDT by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Salvation; NYer; Romulus; jo kus; Kolokotronis; kosta50; Forest Keeper; Alex Murphy
Evangelicals tolerate pentecostal superstition and fundamentalist ignorance, without breaking fellowship. So why criticize the Catholics for tolerating some superstition and ignorance?

I think this goes to the crux of the problem.

It is not that a person cannot be a Catholic and a true follower of Jesus Christ, nor that any other church is perfect and without flaws. The issue is that the Catholic church tolerates some superstition and ignorance, yet refuses to admit that they are such.

Key elements of this for me include the attributing of Godly attributes and titles to the Pope, Marian dogmas, veneration of Saints, and the creation of a priesthood standing between God and man. These are more than minor issues, and go to the heart of having no gods before God, and to the place and purpose of Jesus Christ.

There is much discourse among non-Catholic (denoting all of these as 'Protestant' is a misnomer I believe) churches about practices and sound theological belief, yet the primary and highest test for this must remain the Word of God contained in scripture. Human tradition has some place in the discourse, but human tradition must be judged by God's Word, and not the inverse.
19 posted on 09/06/2007 10:53:20 PM PDT by DragoonEnNoir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DragoonEnNoir
The issue is that the Catholic church tolerates some superstition and ignorance, yet refuses to admit that they are such.

Key elements of this for me include the attributing of Godly attributes and titles to the Pope, Marian dogmas, veneration of Saints, and the creation of a priesthood standing between God and man.

From a kind of distant, unattached perspective, two comments, the less important first:

(1)AS I think the article said, when a "protestant" (speaking loosely) group decides that this or that is a superstition, they fissiparate. Where there was one group, now there are two, each claiming the archaic mojo (if you'll excuse the technical language ...). In the Catholic Church, when somebody rubs the hierarchy's face in some superstition (as THEY, rather than somebody not a member of the this group, think) they rear back and inhibit or prohibit or suspend, or something.

As an example, there is currently in vogue a notion called "Fundamental Option" (developed, I think, to assuage the guilt of those who use artificial birth control despite the clear teaching not to do so) which states, more or less, that if you really intend by your act to show love for God and your neighbor, why then it's okay! This has been explicitly declared a no-no in Veritatis Splendor.

(I'm trying to ignore the uncomfortable reality that the proclaimers of this teaching went merrily on proclaiming it after that encyclical was published. At least in the case in which I was involved I could speak up and cite the encyclical and could sort of clean up after this particular heterodox but well-meaning deacon and 'splain to the victims of his teaching that it wasn't true.)

(2) Of course members of different groups will differ on what is superstition and what is orthodoxy. Basing my guess on your inclusion of "and the creation of a priesthood standing between God and man," in your list of superstitions, that you may not quite understand what we think of priests. And if that's so, maybe what you think we think about the others may also be a tad uncertain. I mean no offense.

But I think the writers point was not meant to go where you're taking it. Rather he was talking about what bodies do when members of those bodies believe things which the body itself, rather than some other body, think is unorthodox.

I agree the term "Protestant" is vague and equivocal. Unfortunately "Protestant" ecclesiology means that there can be no body to say authoritatively what the term means.

...human tradition ...

Just as a place marker, I want to note that "tradition" and "human tradition" do not certainly mean the same thing, or we would just say "tradition". There are, we think, some traditions which are not merely human.

20 posted on 09/07/2007 5:27:58 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
... the Catholic Church proclaims it is the only one who has the truth!

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we think we have MORE of the truth? We don't have the WHOLE truth, that's fer shur. And we don't think the others have NO truth.

21 posted on 09/07/2007 5:30:56 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; ...

Excellent series! Thank you for posting it.


22 posted on 09/07/2007 5:39:13 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
What a thoroughly white bread remark this one is!

But ... but ... I AM white bread! (Okay, if you overlook my Jewish great grandfather ....)

What I'm seeing as a nouveau Catholic is that the ethnic parishes, at least in the boonies or where Catholicism and the local populace have been overwhelmed by migrations, are no longer so ethnic. In my parish the mix is amazing. We have an international food festival thing and there is Korean, Vietnamese, Fillipino, English (white bread?) (Yes, the English HAVE been known to cook)(rarely), French, EYEtalian, and more.

Personaly I have a real problem with a church that won't help me get thin, but that's another issue.

On the other hand we do have in the Diocese of Richmond a specifically Vietnamese parish., so it's not a slam dunk either way.

23 posted on 09/07/2007 5:46:47 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind; swmobuffalo; annalex
It really comes down to what the Bible says.

The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn't tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.

If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians' determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God's written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible.

24 posted on 09/07/2007 5:48:48 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

that’s not the point.


25 posted on 09/07/2007 5:52:48 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
that’s not the point.

Oh good! Then I can eliminate a whole bunch o' stuff. A clean miss is almost always helpful.

But please tell me WHAT's not the point? How did I miss it, and what IS the point?

(Missing the point is one of my, ah, gifts.)

26 posted on 09/07/2007 6:14:06 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Having grown up Protestant, one of my biggest problems with it is that its structure leads to a very shallow knowledge of its faith by its members. I know a great many who distinguish themselves as “Bible believers”, and who could recite many a passage, but do not dwell on the messages contained therein.

That’s one of the great effects of standardized prayers such as the Rosary, the Lord’s Prayer, etc. So many have castigated them as merely repetition without meaning, but in actuality, one cannot help but to reflect on their depth of meaning as one learns their use and utility over time.

Back to being a “Bible Believer”, I never know whether to be shocked or amused when I hear that used as opposition to Catholicism. As you said NYer, just where do they think their Bible came from?


27 posted on 09/07/2007 6:50:17 AM PDT by kenth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
(Yes, the English HAVE been known to cook)(rarely)

. . . but nobody wants to eat it.

We would have starved to death in London if it hadn't been for Indian and Chinese restaurants . . . and McDonald's. Which just goes to show you how bad English cooking is, that we voluntarily ate Macky-D's!

28 posted on 09/07/2007 6:51:25 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

The Catholic Church does not build mosques, — what are you talking about?

Pope John Paul II chose to kiss the Koran presented to him. It was an act of courtesy, generally expected of a diplomat. He liked kissing things: he also kissed the ground wherever he went. Whatever you think of his actions, — I personally think he should have found a polite way not to kiss that book — this is his action as an individual and not an instruction to us to go and kiss the nearest Koran. Should we, given that he is our Holy Father, imitate him? There is no obligation on Catholics to do so any more that we should imitate his skiing style or Polish accent. The fact that he was polite to the Muslim we should probably imitate, especially if they mean good and give us expensive presents. I was recently given an extra yoghurt with my kebob in an Afghani meat shop. I remembered the Holy Father kissing the Koran and said “Thank you very much, Sir”. I then ate the yoghurt. The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church spoke through me that asfternoon to the infidels.


29 posted on 09/07/2007 6:53:32 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Some folks seem to confuse the Founder with the Foundation.


30 posted on 09/07/2007 7:00:15 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
You know that in almost every matter I throw myself at your feet, right? Good, because now I have to say:

Harrumph!

My late aunt, of the extreme Limey persuasion, born within the sound of Bow Bells and all, could cook so beautifully that it would make you weep. The day I passed my canonical exams in the Pspsicola Church (12/31/76) there was an unsually low tide in Oyster Bay. While I was sweating the last day of exams, my family was out gathering oysters! That night we had Oyster Stew and Beef Wellington, all cooked by Auntie Peggy.

Wow! Trifle for dessert! Nirvana!

31 posted on 09/07/2007 7:05:29 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Somebody needs to address that it looks like St Paul writing to Timothy might have been one of those making that confusion ...

Or not.

32 posted on 09/07/2007 7:07:00 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DragoonEnNoir
Catholic church tolerates some superstition and ignorance, yet refuses to admit that they are such. Key elements of this for me include the attributing of Godly attributes and titles to the Pope, Marian dogmas, veneration of Saints, and the creation of a priesthood standing between God and man

This is not what Al is talking about. What he probably meant is that some Catholics for sure do superstitious things and are ignorant of what their church teaches. The things you enumerated are indeed parts of Catholicism, and as such are to be understood and followed. But they are not superstitions.

The numerous titles of the pope are simply custom. Nothing mysterious or supernatural attaches to them. If you have a question about a specific title, I can try and answer your question.

The Marian dogmas and the veneration of saints are all the belief system of the early Church, whether they have a direct scriptural prooftext or not. They certainly all make scriptural sense. If you have a specific question, again, I will try to answer, or you can educate yourself using the Internet or your local parish as a resource.

The priesthood is quite simply scriptural. Christ sent his apostles to give the Eucharist and educate; they sent others and still do. When an unconsecrated person attempts to imitate a priest, then that is superstition and bad things happen, scripture tells us (Acts 19:13-16).

Human tradition has some place in the discourse, but human tradition must be judged by God's Word, and not the inverse.

Now this is superstition. Where did you get that from? Please see On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

33 posted on 09/07/2007 7:11:29 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The Catholic Church does not build mosques, — what are you talking about?

Checked the German headlines lately? That's why I left. The straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. Quite happy as a Missouri Synod Lutheran.
34 posted on 09/07/2007 7:14:47 AM PDT by Old_Mil (Rudy = Hillary, Fred = Dole, Romney = Kerry, McCain = Crazy. No Thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
In so far as St. Paul was writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I'd personally be loath to accuse him (much less Him) of making any sort of confusion. Individual interpreters are a different matter.

Now, where is it we go to resolve a dispute over interpretation?

35 posted on 09/07/2007 7:16:48 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Thanks for the reply Mad Dawg.

The question though is not what ‘others’ do in the face of ‘superstition and ignorance’, but what we as followers of Christ are called to do.

Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage - with great patience and careful instruction. (2 Ti 4:2)
I would also echo the injunction in 1 Cor and Eph here to do so 'with love'.

As to what constitutes ‘superstition and ignorance’, in this sense my meaning is that which is not supported by clear scriptural antecedents and which is built upon the (often well meaning) traditions of men.

Your comment on birth control is an interesting one, as it raises an issue that's been on my mind lately. If you like, this can be considered a 'superstition' by my definition, as the scriptural support for it is weak at best. Such things though have much broader theological implications.

Are we saying that the God of Abraham and Isaac, the Great I Am, for whom nothing is impossible... can have His will thwarted by a few microns of latex? Are we saying that sexual intercourse within a lawful marriage is not meant to be joyful and physical? Are we saying that Christ, who is the fulfillment of the Law, needs to have a new law created by man (though the RC would argue it is by God though His vicar upon earth... yet did Christ come to fulfill the law so that His 'vicar' could reestablish it?)?

My comment of priests was not a denigration of the need for leadership, order, and authority within the church (we are to be a people in submission to governing authorities, and most of all to be a people in willing and loving submission to an all sufficient God), rather it was a critique of all churches where a priesthood has arisen which sets itself up (whether willfully or not) as a mediator between God and man. This does not even address the question of priest acting as alter Christos in persona Christi

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus (1 Ti 2:5)

There well may be elements of RC understanding of priesthood with which I'm unfamiliar. If there are any points which you believe are germane, please bring them to my attention.

Agreed that there are some traditions that are given to us from God, yet we need to teach them clearly so that they are obeyed not just in physical action, but in full spirit and in truth.

His peace be with you.

36 posted on 09/07/2007 7:18:21 AM PDT by DragoonEnNoir
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard
Now, where is it we go to resolve a dispute over interpretation?

How many guesses do I get? ;-)

Uh, The 700 Club?

No, I know! Mother Angelica.

Breathes there a man with so little grace
That he'd dare disagree with her to her face?
Pope, schmope! It's the thought of her brandishing a ruler that brings me in line and shuts me up!
37 posted on 09/07/2007 7:33:01 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: DragoonEnNoir
Why do all the fun conversations start when I'm supposed to be in at least two other places?

I am working toward becoming a lay Dominican, so the notion of preaching in season and out of season (and even with love, but only if absolutely necessary ;-) ) is like mother milk to me -- or something like that. No argument there.

my meaning is that which is not supported by clear scriptural antecedents and which is built upon the (often well meaning) traditions of men.

Well, "clear" is where the conversation hinges, isn't it?

Let me take as an example something to which this guy refers, though he treats it slightly differently from the way I do.

If you think about what a good son wants for his mother, and if you think that Jesus was the perfect Son, you have not left behind anything that is clearly in Scripture, right? And if you think what happened when the woman with the issue of blood touched just His clothing, and when people touched the fringes of his clothes, AND you think that a mother touches and is touched by her child in the most intimate and immediate manner imaginable, you are still within the bounds of Scripture. What good son does not want to give to his mother all he can give?

I am not seeking to persuade you of Marian dogmas. My goal is humbler, namely: to say that it is precisely in contemplation of Scripture that those dogmas arise.

Okay, YOUR comment on what is amusingly referred to as 'ABC' (Artificial Birth Control) gets MY attention! It was throughout Christianity condemned until the 1930 Lambeth Conference of the C of E made the first crack in the wall. It may be "merely" a tradition but it was pretty widely observed, as much by Sola Scriptura types as by anyone. That's not dispositive either way, but it's worth considering.

Further, when one thinks about "witchcraft" in a pre-scientific age, specifically a pre-medical science age, what are the kinds of things one might go to a sorcerer for as a matter of regular affairs. (Checked your junk mail lately?) Abortifacients and contraceptives would, I think, be almost a main seller in the armamentarium of the little herbs and potions mixer and vendor down the street. The word translated by many as "sorcery" in Gal 5:20 is ...
φαρμακεια
pharmakeia, as in pharmacy.

(Gad! Maybe the Christian Scientists are right!) (Get a hold of yourself, Mad Dawg!)

So again, it's closer to what's right there "in the Bobble!" (as we used to say at Seminary) than you might think at first, or even second, glance.

To your series of questions I would say, "No." AS to specifics:

Did you read the guy's discussion of ABC? I thought it wasn't bad. And one thing about NFP (Natural Family Planning) is that it makes sexual intercourse deliberate and solemn, which does not contradict "joyful". (I didn't get the "physical" part of the question. How else you gonna do sex?)

As to the "new law" question, I guess I don't get that either. There are still morals after Pentecost. A great many things may now be "lawful" but there are still things that are "unedifying". And a gluttonous approach to sexual intercourse is, I think, disintegrative of persons. Our will should lead and our body follow. To the extent that the body leads, our will is either not involved or overwhelmed. And on a practical level, since sexual desire is often different in the parties to a marriage, one thing that ABC does (I hear from women I have counselled or discussed it with) is make it harder for the wife to turn aside the husbands importunacies. One person agreed that she was more or less thinking, "Okay, this'll take another 10 or 15 minutes, and then I can get back to my book." Does such a thing make for good marriages or even good sex?

As somebody else has already said, we Catholics find mediators everywhere -- even though some of us have read I Tim 2:5. It is in Christ and His Spirit, we would say, that we all are mediators for one another and even for those outside the Faith. "Kings and priests to God" all of us. The priesthood of the, uh, priesthood is kind of a special case of that. (I could be wrong on this aspect of it - I mean wrong about our teaching -- the whole conversaiton must presume I could be wrong altogether.) AS you wish me peace, you are mediating, and as I wish you peace I am ditto, as I see it. But it is because we are in Christ that we can do that.

That's got to be enough for a start. We're going to start writing encyclopedias to one another!

38 posted on 09/07/2007 8:30:41 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: kenth
So many have castigated them as merely repetition without meaning, but in actuality, one cannot help but to reflect on their depth of meaning as one learns their use and utility over time.

For the average catholic, praying the rosary is rote prayer - if and when they do it. It took a minor catastrophe to jolt me into praying the Rosary on a daily basis; it is now my constant companion.

While preparing 11th graders for the Sacrament of Confirmation, I introduced them to meditative and contemplative prayer. They truly enjoyed that. Personally, I try to start my day with the Prayers of Safro (Morning) of the Maronite Divine Office. These are so beautiful!

39 posted on 09/07/2007 8:41:10 AM PDT by NYer ("Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" - Ignatius of Antioch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
Minor point -- trifle is a Scottish dish. And the Duke of Wellington probably had a French chef (most of the upper class did at that time), and the recipe's inclusion of puff pastry, truffles and duxelle mushrooms indicates a French origin . . . .

I wasn't saying anything about English home cooking, there is good food to be had among friends and relatives, so long as they're not of the "boil the vegetables to mush, don't season anything, and make sure the meat is tough" school.

It's the restaurant and pub food that's inedible. Even Dr. Samuel Johnson (who thought dining at his favorite tavern was as close to heaven on earth as one could get) warned that "the safest dish in an English tavern is a fowl."

40 posted on 09/07/2007 8:58:58 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil

You left the Church because of a German headline? Did the headline say “Aus Seiner Gnade Allein”?


41 posted on 09/07/2007 8:59:36 AM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Old_Mil
The pillar and foundation of truth does not build mosques and kiss the Koran.

Tut Tut...:)

42 posted on 09/07/2007 8:59:57 AM PDT by Iscool (Was the doctor that would have found the cure for cancer aborted as a baby???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

"Woe betide you!" < WHACK! >

43 posted on 09/07/2007 9:03:33 AM PDT by AnAmericanMother ((Ministrix of Ye Chase, TTGC Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
The point is that the Roman Catholic Church has declared that the Roman Catholic Church is the repository of truth.

That is like me telling you that I am the world's expert on a particular subject. I can claim all kinds of things, but that doesn't make it true. The Catholic Church can claim all kinds of things...doesn't make it true.

44 posted on 09/07/2007 9:05:37 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tiki

“They are only excluded by their own choice. There is only one church, it is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Non-Catholic Christians aren’t considered to have an inferior faith but they join themselves to organizations which cannot be Church because there is only one, established by Christ and protected by the Holy Spirit and it will prevail until the end of time.”

Nice little whitewash there. There is only one church, made up of all the believers of Christ, there are however denominations that make things up as they go along.


45 posted on 09/07/2007 9:07:02 AM PDT by swmobuffalo (The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother; LiteKeeper
... shivering with fear ...

I rest my case! Hey, LiteKeeper! Go to 43 and tell it to her face!

Then run really fast!

46 posted on 09/07/2007 9:10:03 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
But I said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we think we have MORE of the truth? We don't have the WHOLE truth, that's fer shur. And we don't think the others have NO truth. So it has NOT proclaimed itself so baldly as the repository of truth. Blitzing out nuance obscures the point, I think.

Yeah, even in my formulation there is a self-referential, self-validating quality to the claim, but let's start by getting the declaration right. Rip us up for what we DO say, not for what we don't, okay?

47 posted on 09/07/2007 9:13:49 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The Marian dogmas were big problems. I still thought [around 1984] the Catholic claims on Mary were outrageous. I went back and read some essays, and concluded that the Bible alone wouldn't compel acceptance of the Marian dogmas; the Bible alone wouldn't lead you to them, yet sustained theological reflection on Jesus' relationship to His mother; if you take the humanity of Jesus with the utmost seriousness, and you take Mary as a real mother, not just a "conduit," and you begin to think about motherhood and sonship, and you think about what it means to receive a body from your mother: flesh . . . God didn't make Jesus' flesh in Mary's womb; He got Mary's flesh.

Sure doesn't agree with the attitude of the bible.

Luke11:27 And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!” 28 But He said, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the word of God and keep it!”

48 posted on 09/07/2007 9:15:49 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (John 2:4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo
Nice little whitewash there.

What is the "whitewash" , exactly?

There is only one church, made up of all the believers of Christ, there are however denominations that make things up as they go along.

Well, yes, that's the other view, and just as our asserting our view doesn't make it so, so your contradicting it doesn't make it NOT so.

49 posted on 09/07/2007 9:16:29 AM PDT by Mad Dawg (Oh Mary, conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

I have been a pastor/teacher for 30 years. I have been confronted by many people with many ideas about the Bible and the Church. I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with her.


50 posted on 09/07/2007 9:17:02 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-246 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson