Testimony of a Former Irish Priest

BereanBeacon.Org ^ | Richard Peter Bennett

[Quix]

Congrats, it appears you have found supposedly professiong believers who are not perfect.

---

INDEED. And given that the Vatican seems to have made mirrors anathema . . . that could be VERY hazardous spiritually.

[Quix]

Show me in Scripture where Scripture is the only objective standard of proof.

“Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Pro. 30:6).

INDEED.

[bkaycee]

Claims of serving in three High Mass weddings are fairly serious.

In what sense? Is there a fine for being a protestant bridesmaid at a catholic wedding?

Let me ask you this: why are you attempting to defend a ludicrous claim that has no proof and is extremely likely never to have any evidence whatsoever?

Not sure how claiming to be a brides maid is ludicrous. What I do find is that your insistance is pointless, ludicrous, and rather Clintonian. You know, kill the messenger or rather burn the prot.

Maybe you could prove to us that you have attended Mass every Sunday for the last 5 years and at least went to confession each month with a successful act of contrition.

Maybe then, we will believe you.

[trisham]

There are good people everywhere, thank goodness. One of my best friends growing up was a Presbyterian. One of my closest friends now is a Baptist, who converted about six to seven years or so ago. I didn’t know her then.

[trisham]

Maybe then, we will believe you.

********************

"We"?

[OLD REGGIE]

All good Catholics learn what has been handed down to us from the Apostles. It is the stiff necked and the proud referenced by St. Stephen in Acts & from Moses that refuse the Word of God and rely on the snippets of the words of men.

Which Apostle(s) handed down the story of the Assumption Of Mary?

Legend
"It is said"
etc.

Just doesn't cut it. Actual, proveable documentation from an eyewitness or, best yet, from the Apostle.

[Natural Law]

"So do Wiccans pray to the one God imperfectly?"

There is nothing Abrahamic about Wicca.

[count-your-change]

I’m sure you’ll correct me wherein I error but doesn’t a church have to have someone to perform the Latin rites and have a choir to do the singing in a High Mass wedding?
What else is needed besides the hopeful couple?

[MarkBsnr]

Claims of serving in three High Mass weddings are fairly serious.

In what sense? Is there a fine for being a protestant bridesmaid at a catholic wedding?

Nope. There is the claim of High Mass. That is the issue.

Not sure how claiming to be a brides maid is ludicrous. What I do find is that your insistance is pointless, ludicrous, and rather Clintonian. You know, kill the messenger or rather burn the prot.

This is deflection. A claim of a rabid antiCatholic that she served as bridesmaid in three Roman Catholic High Mass weddings, given a posting history of tremendous departure from the truth will be met with questions as to, among other things, what type of church and the year involved, to determine if in fact the claim is true.

If I came on FR and made the claim that I served as Minister of Finance for three European countries and would have served at three more, except I wanted to return to this side of the pond, it would be met how? With complete and open acceptance? Or would somebody ask for things such as what country during what time period?

Okay fine. I will tell you that I was actually the flight commander of the last Apollo mission and I was the last human being to walk on the moon. Want my autograph? Or do you want some sort of proof?

[Quix]

WELL PUT.

[Quix]

Which Apostle(s) handed down the story of the Assumption Of Mary?
Legend
“It is said”
etc.

Just doesn’t cut it. Actual, proveable documentation from an eyewitness or, best yet, from the Apostle.

---

INDEED TO THE SUPREME DEGREE!

[trisham]

From Wikipedia:

“Different levels of celebration”

“There are various forms of celebration of the Tridentine Mass:
Pontifical High Mass: celebrated by a bishop accompanied by an assisting priest, deacon, subdeacon, thurifer, acolytes and other ministers, under the guidance of a priest acting as Master of Ceremonies. Most often the specific parts assigned to deacon and subdeacon are performed by priests. The parts that are said aloud are all chanted, except that the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, which before the reform of Pope Pius V were said in the sacristy, are said quietly by the bishop with the deacon and the subdeacon, while the choir sings the Introit. The main difference between a pontifical and an ordinary High Mass is that the bishop remains at his throne almost all the time until the offertory.
Solemn or High Mass (Latin: Missa solemnis): offered by a priest accompanied by a deacon and subdeacon and the other ministers mentioned above.
Missa Cantata (Latin for “sung mass”): celebrated by a priest without deacon and subdeacon, and thus a form of Low Mass, but with some parts (the three variable prayers, the Scripture readings, Preface, Pater Noster, and Ite Missa Est) sung by the priest, and other parts (Introit, Kyrie, Gloria, Gradual, Tract or Alleluia, Credo, Offertory Antiphon, Sanctus and Benedictus, Agnus Dei, and Communion Antiphon) sung by the choir. Also, incense may be used exactly as at a Solemn Mass with the exception of incensing the celebrant after the Gospel which is not done.
Low Mass: the priest sings no part of the Mass, though in some places a choir or the congregation sings, during the Mass, hymns not always directly related to the Mass.”

[trisham]

Er, do you have photos?

[OLD REGGIE]

"We don't hold to the traditions of men and you accuse us of relying on the words of men?"

Absolutely you do, beginning with the novelties of the Reformation including sola scriptura but not sola scriptura, and removing books from the Bible.

Adding books to the Bible by the RCC is similar to putting 23 gallons of gasoline in a 20 gallon tank. It makes a horrible mess and pollutes the environment.

The Jews and those dreaded "Protestants" simply kept the 20 gallons which only the Jews were authorized to put into the tank.

Romans 3:
[1] Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision?
[2] Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God.

[Deo volente]

" And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one you be puffed up for one against another." (1 Cor. 4:6).

I'll let Patrick Madrid respond. He does a much better job than I could ever hope to do.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp

There are several of ways to demonstrate that 1 Corinthians 4:6 can't rescue sola scriptura from the realm of myth. First, note that none of the Reformers attempted to use this verse to vindicate sola scriptura. In fact, John Calvin says Paul's use of the phrase "what is written" is probably either a reference to the Old Testament verses he quotes within his epistle or to the epistle itself (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 4:6). Not only did Calvin not see in 1 Corinthians any support for sola scriptura, a theory he vociferously promoted, he regarded the verse as obscure at best and of negligible value in the effort to vindicate Protestantism.

Some commentators see in 1 Corinthians 4:6 an allusion to "what is written" in the Book of Life (Ex. 32:32-33, Rev. 20:12). This is quite possibly what Paul had in mind, since the context of 1 Corinthians 4:1-5 is divine judgment (when the Book of Life will be opened and scrutinized). He admonishes the Corinthians against speculating about how people will be judged, leaving it up to "what has been written" in the Book of Life. Although that interpretation of the text is a possibility, being consistent with the rest of Scripture, it is by no means certain.

What is certain is that Paul, in saying, "do not go beyond what is written," was not teaching sola scriptura. If he had, he would have been advocating one of four principles, which are inconsistent with the rest of his theology: (1) Accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings; (2) accept as authoritative only the Old Testament writings and the New Testament writings penned as of the date Paul wrote 1 Corinthians (circa A.D. 56); (3) accept as authoritative orally transmitted doctrine only until it has been reduced to writing (scripture) and only while the apostles are alive, then disregard all oral tradition and adhere only to what is written; or (4) the most extreme position, accept as authoritative only doctrine that has been reduced to writing.

The difficulties with these options are immediately clear. No Protestant would agree with option one, that the Old Testament is a sufficient authority in matters of doctrine. Nor would he accept option two, for this would mean all New Testament books written after the year 56 would not qualify under the 1 Corinthians 4:6 guideline. Hence, John's Gospel, Acts, Romans, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Jude, and Revelation would all have to be jettisoned as non-authoritative.

Option three fails because in order for sola scriptura to be a "biblical" doctrine there must be, by definition, at least one Bible verse which says Scripture is sufficient, or that oral Tradition is to be disregarded once Scripture has supplanted it, or that Scripture is superior to oral Tradition. But there are no such verses; and as we'll see, 1 Corinthians 4:6 is no exception.

Option four is likewise untenable because it contradicts Paul's express command in to "Stand fast and hold firm to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours" (2 Thess. 2:15). Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.

[OLD REGGIE]

"They're a very unhappy bunch. My RC father-in-law, as he lay dying, was furious at his impending death. He was terrified he hadn't lived a life good enough to merit heaven. He literally died screaming in fear."

Literally? Too bad you didn't catch it on video, right? That way you could show us all that you don't depart from the truth and put our minds all at rest.

It is on video. It's one of the 3 part set showing Constantine's deathbed conversion and the deathbed conversions of numerous ex-Catholics.

(Sadly, Dr. Eckleburg left the room a few seconds prior to the miraculous last second enlightenment of her father-in-law. He died a happy man.)

[Iscool]

Let me ask you this: why are you attempting to defend a ludicrous claim that has no proof and is extremely likely never to have any evidence whatsoever?

So what makes the claim ludricrous???

[Iscool]

" And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one you be puffed up for one against another." (1 Cor. 4:6)

I wonder if that would include Mary, or Peter???

[Iscool]

Excellent...

[Iscool]

Thus, for 1 Corinthians 4:6 to support the theory of sola scriptura, Paul would have been talking out of both sides of his mouth, on one side demanding adherence to the written word only, and on the other urging fastidious adherence to both written and oral tradition.

You're another one who doesn't understand the difference between 'and' and 'or'??? The verse says OR, not AND...

You chose one or the other...The written word, OR, tradition...Both are acceptable to Paul...You don't need both...One or the other...NOT, one AND the other...

And how could this be??? Because they are both the same thing, of course...