Posted on 08/01/2010 1:39:03 PM PDT by marshmallow
It is really quite interesting how little sometimes our respective communions know about each other: a friend of mine, a convert Anglo-Catholic priest, now a Roman Catholic priest, was, soon after he had made his decision, carefully shown by a kind old lady how to make the sign of the cross. He hadn’t the heart to break it to her that he had been making the sign of the cross for years. I recall my surprise, even shock, as a boy when I discovered that Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed; how, I wondered, could they say ‘I believe in one, holy catholic and apostolic church’ and not be, well, Catholic?
I have seen many preconceptions the other way. A lady Methodist minister, attending Mass for the first time, was surprised indeed to find that it wasn’t all about Mary. There are very many non-Catholics who still fervently believe that Catholic laity are forbidden the scriptures. A Jehovah’s Witness that I met asserted that, to this day, Catholics must listen to sermons in Latin, it being forbidden to preach in the vernacular. That I denied this was proof to him of the mendacity of Catholics.
But there are other, less dramatic, mis-expectations. An Anglo-Catholic priest who is considering the Ordinariate option very seriously emailed to me the other day ‘I’m glad you do sometimes have fun across the Tiber there. I was trying to reconcile myself to doing without fun.’ It reminded me very acutely of my first encounter with the late Canon Brian Brindley. It was in December 1992, or thereabouts, and I was having lunch with a friend in a restaurant, and said friend nudged me and said ‘That’s Canon Brindley over there: he’s going to become a Catholic over this women priests thing.’ It turned out that my friend, also a convert, though of longer standing, knew Brian. When he had finished his meal, the larger than life Brian Brindley stopped by our table to greet my friend, and was introduced to me.
‘Well, Father, I expect you will see me soon at your church; I shall come to the earliest and lowest Mass I can find; after all, nothing’s going to be fun any more.’
I said, of course, that I hoped that would not prove to be the case, and, several years later, Brian, by now a good friend, admitted to me that it had all in fact been great fun; though not in the way that he expected. He enjoyed being a Roman Catholic, though it was a different experience from what he had been used to, and certainly from what he had been expecting. He had made a lot of new friends and had a lot of fun with them, and discovered that the Church of Rome was not a grim totalitarian monolith where everything was forbidden until it was compulsory.
I suppose there are swings and roundabouts. There is not the fun to be gained from being ‘naughty’ in terms of ritual, I suppose, which reminds me of an incident in Mgr Ronald Knox’s life. He was charged with having just had fun at the Church of England’s expense while still in Anglican orders. He was stung, and replied along the lines of ‘not at all; we were all in deadly earnest. But you won’t convince me that it wasn’t fun doing it’.
Liturgical frivolity, I suppose, is not really a feature in our life. But there are compensations. The fraternity among the clergy is much stronger and much more supportive, something akin, perhaps, to the SSC, except that it embraces all the clergy. Apart from the natural antipathies which occur in all walks of life, there is a much stronger interrelationship between clergy working in an area. Differences of views are not nearly as marked as those found in the Church of England, and not nearly as marked as I think you might think. Were you to judge an average diocese by, say Damian Thompson’s blog, you might believe that we were all at each other’s throats. Not at all: there is basic agreement on all the important things with ninety-five per cent of one’s brethren. Differences tend to be those of approach or liturgical style, which subjects tend not to get the blood boiling or make one want to avoid the other.
Part of the reason for this is the practice of incardination; priests live and work in one diocese for their entire careers. This means that they have known their colleagues since seminary and tend to have an underlying affection even when there are differences. The predominance of celibacy among the clergy also means that we tend to regard each other as family. Bishops are far less remote than in the Church of England; I would have no difficulty simply ringing up my bishop for a chat or for some advice; an Anglican friend tells me that that would be unheard of in his Anglican diocese.
On the other hand, I understand that the ‘flying bishops’ have done much to break down barriers—the affection with which Bishop Barnes writes about his clergy is edifying.
As regards the laity, I think the biggest change for people is suddenly belonging to a much bigger operation. I read somewhere recently on an Anglican blog that ‘Anglicans go to church, Catholics go to Mass’; this was to stress the rather congregational focus of Anglicanism; this will not be the case over the Tiber. Catholics tend to identify much more strongly with ‘being Catholic’ than ‘being a member of St Disibod’s’. It sets up all sorts of currents through one’s daily life; suddenly one finds that one has fellow Catholics among ones workmates and this immediately sets up a special bond. You notice others with a smudge on their forehead on Ash Wednesday, and suddenly find that you have more in common with somebody from the other side of the world than with your next-door neighbour.
Going to confession is another suprise for converts. I suppose most Ordinariate members will normally go to their own priests, but many have remarked at their surprise—perhaps shock would not be too strong a word—at the, literally, short shrift they get from ordinary Roman Catholic priests. We do not do spiritual direction in the confessional—in fact, I and many others disapprove of the practice, because of the nature of the seal of the confessional. Talking of other matters under the seal puts a strain on the priest to remember exactly where he heard something, and worry as to whether he can refer to it or not, and to whom. Confession is for sins, a couple of sentences of advice, penance, absolution, and that’s it. Spiritual Direction is for armchairs and a mug of something nice.
No doubt others of you who are familiar with this journey will be able to contribute your own experiences of familiarity and unfamiliarity that might help others on the same road. Although Ordinariates will have their own life, those of you who join one will almost certainly find yourselves joining and being part of a large mainstream which, I pray, will be an entirely positive, and joyful, experience.
You wrote:
“First off, I owned up to my own conjectures and stated them as such.”
I don’t deny that you admitted your points were mere conjecture. I don’t disagree with that at all.
“Second, your response is little more than an arrogant and bigoted pile of dung as far as either argument or instruction is concerned.”
The truth is often viewed by some who are out of touch with reality as arrogant. If you find what is true to be a “bigoted pile of dung as far as either argument or instruction is concerned” then that’s your problem.
“Your responses show you to be neither peace-loving, nor considerate, nor submissive [to the authority of Scripture], nor full of mercy and good fruit, nor impartial.”
I am absolutely submissive to scripture - hence I am not in a Protestant sect. Christ came with the sword. I do not consider the truth uncharitable. You apparently do.
I regard anyone who asserts the ‘sinlessness’ of Mary as a fool. I firmly believe there is only one who is sinless: Jesus. There is only one name by which we are saved: Jesus. There is no ‘sharing’ in that redemptive work itself, though there is sharing in Righteousness (Namely Jesus shares his with us). In as far as redemption is concerned I reject that any human helped therein, otherwise it would be quite valid to assert that Pilate is a co-redeemer with Christ for it was by his authority that Christ was put to death (though even there, that authority came from God).
you wrote:
“I regard anyone who asserts the ‘sinlessness’ of Mary as a fool.”
People 2,000 years ago thought St. Paul was a fool for believing in the resurrection.
“I firmly believe there is only one who is sinless: Jesus.”
I understand.
“There is only one name by which we are saved: Jesus.”
We agree.
“There is no ‘sharing’ in that redemptive work itself, though there is sharing in Righteousness (Namely Jesus shares his with us).”
Actually all Christians communicate the message of redemption when they teach, preach or live out the gospel. We do not share in the redemptive act itself. Christ did that work. We do, however, share in teaching about the redemption and in living it out in our Christian lives.
“In as far as redemption is concerned I reject that any human helped therein, otherwise it would be quite valid to assert that Pilate is a co-redeemer with Christ for it was by his authority that Christ was put to death (though even there, that authority came from God).”
And again, it seems clear you do not know what co-redemptorix means. To disagree with it is not a problem. To disagree with something that no one actually believes in or teaches while suggesting that it is what people believe in or teach is just ignorant.
To say that ‘redemptrix’ has nothing to do with ‘redeem’ is as absurd as saying that ‘dominatrix’ has nothing to do with ‘domination.’
You wrote:
“To say that ‘redemptrix’ has nothing to do with ‘redeem’ is as absurd as saying that ‘dominatrix’ has nothing to do with ‘domination.’”
You are making a logic error. Yes, redemptrix has something to do with redemption. But it has NOTHING to do with the singular redemptive act of Christ on the Cross in any way that detracts from Christ’s sacrifice. I pointed this out and posted a link to a source that ably explained this. Why are you still making the same error?
As Martin Beckman explains:
“Jesus Christ as true God and true man redeems the human family, while Mary as Coredemptrix participates with the Redeemer in his one perfect Sacrifice in a completely subordinate and dependent way. The key word here is “participation” in that which is exclusively true of Jesus Christ. The title “Coredemptrix” never puts Mary on a level of equality with our Lord; rather, it refers to Mary’s unique and intimate participation with her divine Son in the work of redemption. “Coredemptrix” is a Latin word; the prefix “co” in the title, “Coredemptrix,” derives from the Latin word “cum,” which means “with,” not “equal to.” Mary’s sufferings are efficacious towards the redemption of man because they are wholly rooted in the redemptive graces of Christ and are perfectly united to His redeeming will. Similarly, as Mediatrix, the Mother of Jesus does not “rival” Christ’s mediation but rather participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ. Imagine water from a reservoir reaching the people through a system of aqueducts or channels. By analogy, Jesus is the infinite “reservoir” of all grace, which is distributed to us through Mary .... as she gave birth to Jesus. Jesus, the one mediator, does not exclude secondary, subordinate mediators.”
http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html
Well, to answer a thing or two,
“Yeah, actually it is. Check the Oxford English Dictionary “
The Roman Catholic Church uses the name in its own publications. It lists itself in the Yellow Pages under Churches, Roman Catholic. Etc. It is the church that continued in Rome when there was a dispute as to the authority in the organized church. There was a split: Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.
Protestants not even being around at that point, in any organized sense, you can hardly blame us for the Roman Catholic name. And since the Roman Catholics embrace and use the name, there is no reason to pretend otherwise.
” If you are implying that I believe the Catholic Church is the only Church sent by God, that is most certainly true. “
I don’t think the church was “sent.” I think it was set up, by God.
The Protestant Church in general; all those denominations which remain faithful to the word of God therein, to be more specific; I view these as the continuing, apostolic church.
As the Church split, first into Easter Orthodox and Roman Catholic; and then degenerated as it embraced increasingly unorthodox beliefs and practices; those within it who resisted the unbiblical and pushed for reforms and worshiped God alone were the ones who were the real church. As the reforms became more vigorous, in the face of continuing decline, I see the reformers as being the continuing church. Not the apostates that were left behind.
So you see, it is a matter of perspective. You see the Roman Catholics of today as being the continuing faithful. I see the Bible believing Protestants of today as being the continuing faithful.
But I do believe that all within the RC church who trust in Christ for salvation, not their own works or the works of the saints or so forth, are saved. As well as all those in the Protestant churches who believe the same.
As for presumption, well, I guess you could call it that. I call it trust. I trust Jesus. I believe what He says. He says that those who trust in Him are His. I presume He is telling the truth.
You wrote:
“The Roman Catholic Church uses the name in its own publications.”
In some - by convention. In England - and we all speak English here - it was against the law for it to call itself anything else but the name Protestants had given it. But that isn’t what the Catholic Church called itself before that time or in countries other than England.
“It lists itself in the Yellow Pages under Churches, Roman Catholic. Etc.”
In some places maybe, but not others. It depends on the bishop and the phone company. In my diocese, they are all listed under “Catholic”.
“It is the church that continued in Rome when there was a dispute as to the authority in the organized church. There was a split: Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic.”
No. There was a dispute between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Notice how you don’t call the EO Churches “Constantinoplian Orthodox”? That would be a silly made up name. Just like “Roman Catholic Church” is largely a made up name in English - made up by Protestants just as the Oxford English Dictionary proves.
“Protestants not even being around at that point, in any organized sense, you can hardly blame us for the Roman Catholic name.”
Oh, my gosh. Let me explain a few things to you since your public school education seems so lacking. The Catholic Church did not call itself “The Roman Catholic Church” suddenly after 1054. PROTESTANTS called it that after their 16th century break with the Church. They used the phrase in English because they were English Protestants and they advanced a theory that would later be called the Three Branches theory (i.e. that the “Roman Catholic”, Orthodox and Anglican churches were three equal branches of Christianity).
“And since the Roman Catholics embrace and use the name, there is no reason to pretend otherwise.”
Except that Catholic do not universally embrace the name. Don’t be dishonest. I’m Catholic and I don’t embrace it. It isn’t the name of the Catechism of the Catholic Church either. Notice that?
“I don’t think the church was “sent.” I think it was set up, by God.”
No, it was sent. Christ sent the Church into the world to convert it. It is not of this earth in itself. That’s why people refer to it as the pilgrim church on earth.
“The Protestant Church in general; all those denominations which remain faithful to the word of God therein, to be more specific; I view these as the continuing, apostolic church.”
And your view is ahistorical and illogical.
“As the Church split, first into Easter Orthodox and Roman Catholic;”
Nope. The Eastern Orthodox split from the Catholic. They, of course, have a different view but even they admit that they can’t have an ecumenical council without US. We don’t need them to do that, however. They left us. There was no split between two churches. There was a split by one group of churches from the Catholic Church.
“and then degenerated as it embraced increasingly unorthodox beliefs and practices;”
Nope. There was no “degeneration”. This is just a Protestant myth - much like the origins of the name “Roman Catholic” and is bolstered by the fact that most Protestants in America are public school products who read little and know even less.
“those within it who resisted the unbiblical and pushed for reforms and worshiped God alone were the ones who were the real church.”
False. All Catholics worshiped God alone and still do. By definition that is the only way it can be.
“As the reforms became more vigorous, in the face of continuing decline, I see the reformers as being the continuing church. Not the apostates that were left behind.”
And yet they were the apostates and there is no other way to logically look at them.
“So you see, it is a matter of perspective.”
Nope. It is a matter of history - irrefutable.
“You see the Roman Catholics of today as being the continuing faithful. I see the Bible believing Protestants of today as being the continuing faithful.”
Protestants do not believe in the Bible. They believe in their interpretation and distortions of it.
“But I do believe that all within the RC church who trust in Christ for salvation, not their own works or the works of the saints or so forth, are saved. As well as all those in the Protestant churches who believe the same.”
Your seem to have no understanding of reality whatsoever.
“As for presumption, well, I guess you could call it that. I call it trust. I trust Jesus. I believe what He says.”
I don’t see any evidence you do. After all Jesus founded one Church and it isn’t your sect.
“He says that those who trust in Him are His. I presume He is telling the truth.”
He is. And He wasn’t talking about your sect. Someone who entrusts himself to a sect over Christ’s Church is not trusting Christ but an apostate.
” Someone who entrusts himself to a sect over Christ’s Church is not trusting Christ but an apostate.”
Your ending point is agreeable to me. Obviously though I see the RC church as the sect.
And I don’t think you should trust yourself to a sect, or a church, per se, but to Christ Himself; always acknowledging He is the head of the church and we should indeed be members of His church.
Actually, His headship of the church is a point of contention between RCs and Protestants, as you probably know - the Catholic church says the pope is the head of the church; the Protestants say Christ is the head of the church.
You wrote:
“Your ending point is agreeable to me. Obviously though I see the RC church as the sect.”
And to see the Catholic Church - the Church from which Protestant sects left - as a sect is a sign of ignorance.
“And I don’t think you should trust yourself to a sect, or a church, per se, but to Christ Himself;”
The Church is Christ’s Body. Christ acts through it. The Church is Christ’s Bride.
“always acknowledging He is the head of the church and we should indeed be members of His church.”
But you’re not members of His Church. You’re in a man-made sect.
“Actually, His headship of the church is a point of contention between RCs and Protestants, as you probably know - the Catholic church says the pope is the head of the church; the Protestants say Christ is the head of the church.”
You’re wrong - and I am not surprised to see a sectarian spreading error. The Church clearly teaches that Christ is head and cornerstone of the Church. It also teaches that Christ appointed St. Peter and his successors to lead the Church on earth. If you’re going to tell me that Catholics deny Christ’s headship of the Church by having an earthly leader of the Church while still acknowledging Christ as head of the Church then you’re probably a hypocrite because I bet your sect has an earthly leader or leaders too. And I also bet you never even thought of that.
And just to prove you wrong, here is what the Catechism teaches:
“Jesus Christ, the head of the Church, precedes us into the Father’s glorious kingdom so that we, the members of his Body, may live in the hope of one day being with him for ever.”
“792 Christ “is the head of the body, the Church.” He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father’s glory, “in everything he [is] preeminent,” especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things.”
“669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body. Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. “The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery”, “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom”.”
“747 The Holy Spirit, whom Christ the head pours out on his members, builds, animates, and sanctifies the Church. She is the sacrament of the Holy Trinity’s communion with men.”
“2045 Because they are members of the Body whose Head is Christ, Christians contribute to building up the Church by the constancy of their convictions and their moral lives. The Church increases, grows, and develops through the holiness of her faithful, until “we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.””
“1348 All gather together. Christians come together in one place for the Eucharistic assembly. At its head is Christ himself, the principal agent of the Eucharist. He is high priest of the New Covenant; it is he himself who presides invisibly over every Eucharistic celebration. It is in representing him that the bishop or priest acting in the person of Christ the head (in persona Christi capitis) presides over the assembly, speaks after the readings, receives the offerings, and says the Eucharistic Prayer. All have their own active parts to play in the celebration, each in his own way: readers, those who bring up the offerings, those who give communion, and the whole people whose “Amen” manifests their participation.”
“1119 Forming “as it were, one mystical person” with Christ the head, the Church acts in the sacraments as “an organically structured priestly community.” Through Baptism and Confirmation the priestly people is enabled to celebrate the liturgy, while those of the faithful “who have received Holy Orders, are appointed to nourish the Church with the word and grace of God in the name of Christ.””
And there are about 8 other pages worth of quotes like that. Anti-Catholics could often cure themselves of their ignorance and bigotry if they just opened up the Catechism and looked at it for themselves. They seem unable to do such an open minded and impartial and charitable thing, however. Their hearts and minds seem small.
“And to see the Catholic Church - the Church from which Protestant sects left - as a sect is a sign of ignorance.”
Well, I could say that to see the errant members who clung to incorrect doctrine and practice, while the faithful abandoned such things, is a sign of ignorance, couldn’t I?
“The Church is Christ’s Body. Christ acts through it. The Church is Christ’s Bride.”
Agreed.
“But you’re not members of His Church. You’re in a man-made sect.”
I think you are in the man-made sect. I appreciate that your quotes show that official RC doctrine is, that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head of the RC church.
Here, we run into problems, where we find the Pope and/or the church taking on the role of God, for instance:
“163. What is meant by the infallibility of the Catholic Church?
By the infallibility of the Catholic Church is meant that the Church, by the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot err when it teaches or believes a doctrine of faith or morals.”
And so we see that the church, with a nod to the Holy Ghost, can not err, according to your catechism. But inerrancy is an attribute of God alone, actually.
Faithful Protestants do not believe any of their leaders are infallible. We do indeed accept their authority over us, and submit to them as long as they submit to Scripture. But we know from Scripture than men are not infallible. It is pretty obvious. Peter’s denial of Christ! Peter, who is supposed to have been the first pope - denied Christ three times. Was he the visible head of the church at that point? I hope not.
Now I don’t mean to beat up on Peter. His repentance was genuine and Jesus clearly forgave him. But his denials are a good example of how even “popes” can commit the most grievous errors.
There are many quotes from the Baltimore catechism which are true. I don’t deny it. But there are portions where the church slides into the place of God rather completely, and from there comes the errors commonly debated between Protestants and Catholics.
You wrote:
“Well, I could say that to see the errant members who clung to incorrect doctrine and practice, while the faithful abandoned such things, is a sign of ignorance, couldn’t I?”
No, you could not say that logically because that isn’t what happened. What I said is undeniable. People left the Church and formed heretical and schismatic sects. To call the only Church anyone even knew - from which those Protestant sects came - a sect can only therefore be a sign of ignorance.
“I think you are in the man-made sect.”
And you’re wrong. These issues are not matters of opinion.
“I appreciate that your quotes show that official RC doctrine is, that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head of the RC church.”
What the quotes showed was that you were in error - objectively in error. I, however, made no such error. You are attacking the Church even though you apparently do not know the most basic things about it. Is ignorance a firm basis for criticism?
“Here, we run into problems, where we find the Pope and/or the church taking on the role of God, for instance:”
Christ gave the Church authority - Luke 10:16.
“And so we see that the church, with a nod to the Holy Ghost, can not err, according to your catechism. But inerrancy is an attribute of God alone, actually.”
The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST. As such, it cannot err in teaching the body of believers. Again, Luke 10:16.
“Faithful Protestants do not believe any of their leaders are infallible. We do indeed accept their authority over us, and submit to them as long as they submit to Scripture. But we know from Scripture than men are not infallible. It is pretty obvious.”
Our leaders are fallible men, but the Church teaches infallibly. Christ was a man, but God as well. People could see He was man, but could not see His divinity. The Church is infallible, but that doesn’t mean people will see it in its ministers - especially when people deny the faith.
“Peter’s denial of Christ! Peter, who is supposed to have been the first pope - denied Christ three times. Was he the visible head of the church at that point? I hope not.”
He had not yet been given the Holy Spirit and the Church had not been revealed to the world. His denial was of his relationship with Jesus as in a simple natural earthly relationship. Would Peter ever deny Christ after Pentecost? I doubt it. Would Peter ever have denied the Lord after the resurrection of Christ? I doubt it. And notice, when Peter denied knowing Christ he did NOT deny that Jesus was divine. That was the doctrine.
“Now I don’t mean to beat up on Peter. His repentance was genuine and Jesus clearly forgave him. But his denials are a good example of how even “popes” can commit the most grievous errors.”
No, actually it isn’t. Peter committed no religious error there. He denied knowing Jesus of Nazareth out of fear. He denied no doctrine. Notice, again, he did not deny that Jesus was divine as he attested in Matthew 16.
“There are many quotes from the Baltimore catechism which are true. I don’t deny it. But there are portions where the church slides into the place of God rather completely, and from there comes the errors commonly debated between Protestants and Catholics.”
No. There are no errors there. Protestants simply look for something to legitimize their rebellion. Some are waking up now and realizing their error.
“People left the Church and formed heretical and schismatic sects. To call the only Church anyone even knew - from which those Protestant sects came - a sect can only therefore be a sign of ignorance.”
So you say. I say the heretics, those who place the doctrines of man over the doctrines of God, are the schismatic ones. They were left behind while the Bible believing went ahead.
“You are attacking the Church even though you apparently do not know the most basic things about it. Is ignorance a firm basis for criticism?”
A criticism is not necessarily an attack. It can be made in love. You respond as though I am berating you. I am bringing up serious doctrinal issues and there are millions more that have the same issues with the RC church.
At the same time, I admit that many important doctrines and practices still held by the RC church are commendable and give me a great deal of hope.
And yes, I do know the most basic things. You seem to think it is a big deal that the RCs teach that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head. I don’t think that’s a big deal. Visible, invisible, or otherwise, there is no other head of the church but Jesus Himself.
“The Church is the BODY OF CHRIST. As such, it cannot err in teaching the body of believers. “
The church is the body of Christ. It is not Christ. It can err and it has erred many times in the past; although God mercifully preserves us.
“No, actually it isn’t. Peter committed no religious error there. He denied knowing Jesus of Nazareth out of fear.”
Seriously? Of course Peter committed grievous error. Jesus rebuked him for it. While Pentecost had not yet occurred, the disciples were given the Holy Spirit and the power to heal the sick and so forth long before Peter’s thrice repeated denial.
To say men can be inerrant because Jesus as man and God was inerrant is not logical. We can’t be man and God. Only Jesus can. We therefore cannot be inerrant. Scripture is clear that ALL men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God. The popes or the college of cardinals are no exception.
“Protestants simply look for something to legitimize their rebellion.”
Rebellion against what? The RC church? I was never a part of it, but if you want to call me rebellious, ok. I am appalled by some of the errors of the RC church and could not in good conscience join it.
Now what are you in rebellion against? As you kiss the feet of statues, call for the daily re-sacrifice of Christ (saying the host is actually His body, along with the church, which is a little confusing), do penance for your own sins, and pray to the deceased, you rebel against the word of God.
You wrote:
“So you say. I say the heretics, those who place the doctrines of man over the doctrines of God, are the schismatic ones.”
And those are the Protestants. Protestantism is a novelty. It is NEW. It is not historic Christianity. It is just an endless series of man made sects and doctrines.
“They were left behind while the Bible believing went ahead.”
Not ahead, but astray. If someone is left behind it means he is left where he was - where he always was. If someone “went ahead” it means he went somewhere where he had never been. That’s the whole point. Protestantism is not historic Christianity. It is man made. It is new. It is a novelty.
“A criticism is not necessarily an attack.”
Neither a criticism nor an attack makes any sense when it is grounded in an apparent lack of knowledge regarding the subject at hand.
“It can be made in love.”
Ignorance is not able to produce love. We can only love that which we know. If we don’t know it, and can’t identify it, then we can’t truly love it.
“You respond as though I am berating you. I am bringing up serious doctrinal issues and there are millions more that have the same issues with the RC church.”
And that just means there are millions living in ignorance. I see it here every day when someone claims Catholics believe this or do that when we don’t, haven’t and won’t. You did it toward the end of your post (I’ll get to that soon enough). Where does all of this ignorance in Protestantism come from? How is it that millions of Protestants are grossly ignorant about historic Christianity while still insisting only their new fangled view of Christianity is right?
“At the same time, I admit that many important doctrines and practices still held by the RC church are commendable and give me a great deal of hope.”
Well, lottidah. You admit that “many” historic Christian truths are commendable. Gee, that’s so mighty big of you. I sure hope you don’t over extend yourself by “admitting” that truths are commendable. Don’t pull a mental muscle or anything now.
“And yes, I do know the most basic things. You seem to think it is a big deal that the RCs teach that the Pope is just the VISIBLE head.”
Because it is a big deal when someone insists that Catholics DON’T believe that Christ is the head of the Church. See, it matters to me when someone either misrepresents the faith or just flat out lies about it. Is that difficult to understand?
“I don’t think that’s a big deal. Visible, invisible, or otherwise, there is no other head of the church but Jesus Himself.”
Except Jesus appointed a visible head. You can deny reality all you like, but to suggest otherwise would be irrational. Are you honestly claiming that Christ left the Church with no leadership at all on this earth? And please don’t tell me that it was only the Holy Spirit who was to lead. That still would not be Christ so it wouldn’t work for your argument in any case.
“The church is the body of Christ. It is not Christ. It can err and it has erred many times in the past; although God mercifully preserves us.”
No, in the teaching of doctrine to the faithful the Church has never erred and can’t err. Men can err, but God preserves the Church from teaching error. But the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and protects the Church from error.
“Seriously? Of course Peter committed grievous error.”
Not religious error in teaching the faithful. What religious error did he - acting as head of the Church (which had not even been revealed to the world yet - teach the people in the court yard? None. None at all. You will prove this yourself when you fail to come up with any such error. A truth will have been demonstrated to you, and I am willing to bet you will choose to ignore it. Also, since the Church had not been revealed to the world, Pentecost had not yet happened, there was no guarantee of infallibility at that time in any case.
“Jesus rebuked him for it.”
It? A religious error? Nope.
“While Pentecost had not yet occurred, the disciples were given the Holy Spirit and the power to heal the sick and so forth long before Peter’s thrice repeated denial.”
It doesn’t matter. The Church had not been revealed. It was not yet Peter’s time. Use your head. What came first? Luke 9 or Matthew 16? The Apostles were healing people in Luke 9. Peter was told he would be the Rock on which the Church would be built in Matthew 16. It was still a prophecy about the future at that time. Now look back at Luke 9. Notice how the Apostles were given the gift of healing BEFORE the prophecy from Jesus about Peter on his confession of faith in Christ’s messiahship (and divinity)? See verses 1 and 18-20. Didn’t you ever notice that before?
“To say men can be inerrant because Jesus as man and God was inerrant is not logical.”
To say that God cannot preserve men from error in a particular role or time is illogical. You believe in the inspiration of scriptures, right? That means the authors were inerrant while they wrote. If a man can be preserved from error while he writes an entire book, why is it illogical to you that God could do the same when he makes a statement about the faith?
“We can’t be man and God. Only Jesus can.”
That’s a ridiculously our of place comment since I never said otherwise.
“We therefore cannot be inerrant.”
So the gospels are frauds? You can’t have it both ways. You cannot say men cannot be inerrant at any time yet produce inerrant gospels. You also, logically, cannot say that the Holy Spirit was the only one inerrant and He simply acted through the sacred authors, because that would in no change anything. The final result would be the same: the gospels are inerrant, and the human authors wrote them out without error. That would make them inerrant at that time. And if that can be done, then there is no reason to believe the Holy Spirit - the Christ appointed, Christ sent protector of the Church - could not act through the pope or a Church council in a somewhat similar fashion.
“Scripture is clear that ALL men are sinners and fall short of the glory of God.”
And yet you believe the gospels are inerrant anyway. And remember, you can’t just explain that away using the fact that the Holy spirit inspired the sacred authors. The end result is the same: inerrant books, inspired by an inerrant God, written through inerrant/inspired human authors.
“The popes or the college of cardinals are no exception.”
And yet they still teach without error when needed.
“Rebellion against what? The RC church? I was never a part of it, but if you want to call me rebellious, ok. I am appalled by some of the errors of the RC church and could not in good conscience join it.”
And yet you apparently cannot make a decent case against those supposed errors from what we see here. A conscience that is grounded or depends on misrepresentations, distortions and just plain lack of information or poor thinking will almost always choose the wrong thing.
“Now what are you in rebellion against? As you kiss the feet of statues, call for the daily re-sacrifice of Christ...”
And there again we see the lack of information or misrepresentation on the part of the anti-Catholic. No one can “re-sacrifice” Christ nor would anyone try. We merely re-present to the Father the same sacrifice in a sacramental form. http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109sbs.asp
Your suggestion that we “re-sacrifice” Christ is much like what an anti-Catholic would say when he hears us say at Mass, “We proclaim your death until you come again in glory.” The anti-Catholic might say, “If Christ rose from the dead, why are you still proclaiming his death 2,000 years later?” The problem ultimately is that many anti-Catholics just don’t know the scriptures. They forget all about 1 Cor. 11:26. Your mistake is different, however. You are accusing us of doing something that we don’t even believe is possible and we wouldn’t do it if it were possible. No one re-sacrifices Christ. No one. Nor does anyone believe that they do it either.
“(saying the host is actually His body, along with the church, which is a little confusing),”
Not to Christians who know the scriptures. CHRIST said the bread was now His body. The Holy Spirit inspired St. Paul to write that the Church was Christ’s body. I don’t find it confusing in the least. Christians who know the Bible don’t.
“do penance for your own sins, and pray to the deceased, you rebel against the word of God.”
Nope. Not in the least. I have never prayed to the deceased. The saints are alive in Christ. As Christ Himself tells us in Mark 12, God is the God of the living, not of the dead. Those in heaven are alive in God. And doing penance or practicing self-denial are certainly not wrong since they are acts in tune with repentance and we should all repent of our sins. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1430 explains:
“Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sack-cloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.”
Your hostility and sarcasm, as in:
“Well, lottidah. You admit that “many” historic Christian truths are commendable. Gee, that’s so mighty big of you. I sure hope you don’t over extend yourself by “admitting” that truths are commendable. Don’t pull a mental muscle or anything now.”
is inappropriate and uncalled for. If you don’t care to have a discussion with me, don’t have one.
You wrote:
“is inappropriate and uncalled for.”
I was not hostile. Actually I think the sarcasm is perfectly appropriate and called for.
“If you don’t care to have a discussion with me, don’t have one.”
If you don’t care to deal with someone’s sarcasm in answer to ignorance, then don’t post it in the first place. If you can’t stand the heat...
Oh, and I noticed how you completely avoided dealing with being called out on the “re-sacrifice” of Christ lie.
Typical.
“
Oh, and I noticed how you completely avoided dealing with being called out on the “re-sacrifice” of Christ lie.
Typical.
“
I basically picked out your first statement and responded to it, instead of writing a book.
Justify your sarcastic and bitter attitude as you like. We will both answer for our words on the Judgement Day. God have mercy on us all.
You wrote:
“I basically picked out your first statement and responded to it, instead of writing a book.”
No, you skipped the first four comments and then all the comments after the ONE you did respond to. I guess you have no answers.
“Justify your sarcastic and bitter attitude as you like. We will both answer for our words on the Judgement Day. God have mercy on us all.”
Yes, we will have to answer for our words. You are spreading falsehoods about God’s Church. I’m not. Think on that.
You come across as a very hateful person. You should think about that.
You are not going to win me or anyone else who may be reading this thread over with the ugly attitude you display. Do you want to win people over? Or just vent your anger? How does that please God?
You wrote:
“You come across as a very hateful person. You should think about that.”
You come across as a very hateful person. The false statements in your posts help prove it too.
“You are not going to win me or anyone else who may be reading this thread over with the ugly attitude you display.”
I’m not trying to win you over. Simply proving your lack of knowledge is enough to show you are in error. For someone to be won over, he must have a conscience.
“Do you want to win people over?”
People who wallow in ignorance or error cannot be won over. What is necessary is to show their errors. A man who wallows in error again and again, never admitting the obvious factual errors, who is then reduced to whining that the person with the facts must be hateful, simply has no conscience.
“Or just vent your anger?”
Neither. I just post the truth. Those who hate the truth refuse to deal with it and reduce themselves to falsely accusing others of hate. It’s a problem of conscience - or lack thereof. Someone who wallows in error and is not man enough to admit it when it is objectively proven (e.g. when someone falsely says someone, anyone, “re-sacrifices” Christ - which is an impossibility as every Christian knows) simply has no conscience.
“How does that please God?”
Correcting the errors of those who either deliberately lie against the faith or faithful or who wallow in error and can’t admit it pleases God. To say otherwise would be to imply that error or lies please God. Apparently that is your view.
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.