Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $11,478
Woo hoo!! And the first 13% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Tao Yin

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Pope Francis Doesn’t Understand How to Alleviate Poverty

    09/21/2015 5:03:18 AM PDT · 23 of 24
    Tao Yin to I want the USA back
    Marxists take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don’t. That is theft.

    Before the theft, you need to have envy. Just because you covet your neighbors wealth for another, rather than yourself, doesn't eliminate the sin.

  • Catholic Divorce: Can the governing acts of the Pope be questioned?

    09/19/2015 7:26:20 AM PDT · 3 of 24
    Tao Yin to ebb tide
    Can the governing acts of the Pope be questioned?

    Not by Catholics. The Pope has the commerce clause equivalent that he needs to be obeyed when morals are involved. The Pope also has the get-out-of-jail-free equivalent that he must be assumed to be correct even when he's not speaking from the chair. This sentiment is repeated throughout the documents of the Roman Catholic Church. Here's one example.

    Lumen Gentium - "the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops' decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated."

  • Could the Doctrine of the Trinity Be Wrong?

    08/31/2015 6:19:08 AM PDT · 76 of 128
    Tao Yin to Zuriel

    2 things. First, trying to understand the Trinity with the human mind is impossible. Second, always use original language when you find a difficult scripture passage.

    John 3:16 doesn't use the word "begotten", it uses the Greek work "monogenes", which has 2 primary definitions. The definition that's important here defines begotten as "the only one of its kind within a specific relationship".

    Hebrews 11:17 (KJV) describes Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son". Does this prove that the Bible is false?

    The Athanasian creed correctly states that Jesus was not created. You can not use the word begotten to prove that Jesus is not eternal.

    Twisting other scriptural verses does not change God's truth.

  • Could the Doctrine of the Trinity Be Wrong?

    08/30/2015 12:54:39 PM PDT · 26 of 128
    I think you need to really study the concept of the Trinity. The article contains several factual errors.

    the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same

    That's an ancient heresy called modalist.

    that “the Lord is one,” yet He manifests Himself as three distinct beings

    That's modalism again.

    Here's an excellent primer. Lutheran Satire: St. Patrick's Bad Analogies

    About Jesus saying that "the Father is greater than I". That is explained in the Athanasian Creed.

    equal to the Father with respect to His divinity,
    less than the Father with respect to His humanity

  • Luther Will Have a Square in the Middle of Rome

    08/24/2015 7:08:11 PM PDT · 26 of 135
    Tao Yin to vladimir998
    No, Luther really opposed the Church.

    No, Luther opposed some really horrible practices and man made traditions. One specifically was that Luther opposed the burning of heretics. Funny, the RCC defended the practice against Luther. There are even Catholics today that approve of the practice and wish Luther would have burned.


    08/24/2015 4:00:13 PM PDT · 40 of 52
    Tao Yin to St_Thomas_Aquinas
    If there is no one on earth who can infallibly interpret Scripture or infallibly teach Christian doctrine, then why does any individual Christian have to obey the teachings of any denomination?

    No Christian has to obey the teachings of any denomination. Christians choose to walk together when they agree. The Bible is filled with passages of individual discernment.

    1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

    Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

    If there was an infallible source on earth, why do these verses exist? Instead these verses should say, "Only believe the spirits from Rome" or "If some preaches a gospel contrary to the Pope"

    Are we to look towards God and His written word, or are we to look towards men?

    Galatians 1:11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

    The gospel was delivered by the apostles. The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church not found in scripture are part of man's gospel: taught from one man to another. I'll stick with the True Gospel as revealed by God through the apostles.

    While we are to strive for unity, this world is imperfect and divisions are a fact.

    The idea of an infallibly magisterium is silly. No one can say "This institution is infallible", while they acknowledge that their individual opinion is fallible.

  • My Baby Screams in Restaurants and I am SO Sorry!

    08/22/2015 8:13:14 PM PDT · 21 of 115
    Tao Yin to PROCON
    A screaming/difficult kid gets taken outside immediately. Period. I've left many a shopping cart in the middle of the isle.

    It was difficult with my son. He would start screaming immediately and keep screaming until his face turned blue, with his fists and butt cheeks clenched. Only once his entire lung was empty of air would he breath in for another breath.

    My daughter was easy. She would start to inhale and keep inhaling until her lungs were bursting full. It would give me time to exit the restaurant or store before she would scream.

    Good times...

  • Answering Those Who Say There Is Only One Mediator

    08/21/2015 9:51:19 PM PDT · 169 of 262
    Tao Yin to vladimir998
    “It doesn’t have to be there to prove Matthew is inspired as the scriptures show us...”

    It does have to be there if you’re using sola scriptura. This is why Protestants always fail.

    That is not sola scriptura. Sola scriptura comes after the canon. The canon is determined by a set of criteria. The criteria is deterministic, so it does not take a subjective authority.

    I found an interesting chart.

    Catholic Church view

    • The Church is the Determiner of Canon
    • The Church is the Mother of Canon
    • The Church is the Magistrate of Canon
    • The Church is the Regulator of Canon
    • The Church is the Judge of Canon
    • The Church is the Master of Canon

    Sola Scriptura view

    • The Church is the Discoverer of Canon
    • The Church is the Child of Canon
    • The Church is the Minister of Canon
    • The Church is the Recognizer of Canon
    • The Church is the Witness of Canon
    • The Church is the Servant of Canon

    I've seen longer lists, but the above link has 3 set of criteria.

    1. Was the author an apostle or did it have apostolic authority?
    2. Does the document agree with the canon of truth?
    3. Was the work accepted by the early church?

    After we determine canon, then we can appeal to the canon.

    Just because a book says it is inspired by God, does not mean it's in the canon. What a silly idea.

    God never explicitly wrote a list of the books of the Bible. I'm not worried about this. Who am I to judge God's ways?

    What is Sola Scriptura? A belief that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice.

    Who can deny that God willed that men write the books of the Bible?

    John 20: 30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

    Sola Scripture is sufficient for salvation.

    Please show me where belief in Peter's successors is good for anything?

  • Answering Those Who Say There Is Only One Mediator

    08/21/2015 7:38:36 AM PDT · 20 of 262
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    But consider that if there is only one mediator in an absolute sense, then no one ought to ask ANYONE to pray for him

    What balderdash! The Bible instructs us to pray for one another. Besides, there is a distinct division between the Church militant and the Church triumphant.

    If I ask someone in the Church militant to pray for me, I can know that they heard me.

    If I ask someone in the Church triumphant to pray for me, I do not know that they heard me and can only hope.

    My hope is in Jesus, based on the word.

    Since talking with someone in the Church triumphant is a one-way communication, maybe you should start incorporating a ouija board so you can receive answers. Because if a member of the Church triumphant does not have to obey the rules of time and space (how many people are praying to Mary at this time all over the world?) what big deal would it be to move a little piece of wood.

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/18/2015 10:58:17 AM PDT · 171 of 1,354
    Tao Yin to Romulus
    If Mary had a fallen human nature, how could she give complete assent to the Incarnation?

    What is "complete assent"? What does that even mean...

    Luke 1:38a And Mary said, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

    If Mary did not give complete assent to the Incarnation, is God a rapist?

    This is the wackiest thing I've ever heard. I know that Catholics assert that scripture should not be interpreted by laymen, but come on! How is Mary's statement to be understood except as complete assent?

    If Jesus received a tainted human nature from his mother, how could he be wholly conformed to the will of his Father?

    What? Why would Jesus receive a tainted human nature from Mary? By the same reasoning, Mary would have received a tainted human nature from her mother. Either Jesus is a special case, or it's turtles all the way down.

    Besides, if Mary didn't have a tainted human nature, is she really one of us?

    There is no atonement without the Immaculate Conception.

    Worst reasoning ever!

  • Mary, Mother of God, The Greatest of all Her Titles

    08/17/2015 6:30:23 PM PDT · 9 of 1,354
    Tao Yin to NKP_Vet
    [Mother of God] is definitely the single most important title that Mary has. If someone gets this wrong, then they get the Divinity of our Lord wrong, and that means the whole plan of Salvation is just messed up.

    What poppycock! The title of Theotokos is important because of what it says about Jesus, not because of what it says about Mary.

    "Mother of God" is a horrible translation because it flips the important point. The point of "Theotokos" is that it states that Jesus was God incarnate from the moment on conception.

    "Mother of God" is a horrible translation because it becomes an honorific for Mary, rather than a statement of belief about Jesus.

    God-bearer, Jesus comes first. Mother-of-God, Mary comes first. See the difference?

  • Is There A Purgatory?

    08/09/2015 6:30:35 PM PDT · 79 of 840
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    I disagree. Catholics provided the Canon of the Bible.

    Please let us know how suicide can be a noble act. (2 Maccabees 14)

  • Why the Orthodox Honor Mary

    07/31/2015 7:03:36 PM PDT · 13 of 76
    Tao Yin to knarf
    God has a mother ?

    Why does God need a spaceship?

  • Answering 10 Catholic Complaints (Part One and Two)

    07/08/2015 10:02:36 AM PDT · 47 of 127
    Tao Yin to wpjmd
    There is a direct uninterrupted lineage from them to today’s RC bishops.

    So what? The apostles said "For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed" and "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you".

    There is no unimpeachable source of Christian truth outside of the words of the apostles as they were originally gifted to the church militant. There is no unimpeachable source for the words of the apostles outside of the Bible.

    The apostles never said they would appoint successors that would never teach wrong. 2 Timothy 2:2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

    Just because they were entrusted, does not mean that there is a promise that they will not err. Notice the requirement of many witnesses? You can't just make stuff up and say it's from the apostles.

    1 Timothy 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith.

  • 10 Things Catholics Are Tired of Hearing

    07/08/2015 6:44:49 AM PDT · 58 of 134
    Tao Yin to Morgana
    2.We don’t pray to Mary, we ask her to pray for us, just as a Protestant asks their deceased grandparent/parent to watch over them.

    Um, no. Protestants do not ask their deceased relatives to watch over them.

    3. there is biblical proof that the saints can hear our prays...

    Wait. You just argued that you don't pray to Mary, but now you're arguing for praying to the saints? Please pick a side.

    4. If our Blessed Mother isn’t important, then every female would have had an immaculate conception.

    Please review the term theotokos. This is properly translated as God-bearer, and incorrectly translated as "Mother of God". The term is important for what is says about Jesus, not for what it says about Mary. It's always about Jesus.

    5. “Catholics made up all their rules.” Every single tradition we have in the Catholic Church, namely during Mass, has biblical roots. Not to mention the fact that Jesus was the founder of our Church. I don’t know about you, but Jesus doesn’t make mistakes.

    Worst answer ever! Everything is biblical? Since when has that been a requirement? Catholics have holy tradition.

    Secondly, you might as well rewrite this paragraph for the Supreme Court. Every single ruling of the Supreme Court follows the constitution. I don't know about you, but I believe in the constitution. See what I did there...

    6. confess it to one another (our priests)

    Really? Does that simple substitution work every time James uses the phrase "one another"? How about "Do not speak evil against one another"? So we are not to speak evil against the priests, but everyone else is okay. Sheesh. Reminds me of Catholics indiscriminately replacing Apostles with Catholic Church when they read and interpret the Bible.

    7. Jesus Christ founded this Church more than 2,000 years ago, I would hardly call it a cult.

    Catholicism isn't a cult because you claim it was founded by Jesus. Please tell me one cult that doesn't claim a valid origin? This answer might be worse that number 5.

  • The Gospel for Roman Catholics

    07/01/2015 7:38:20 AM PDT · 6 of 1,189
    Tao Yin to Resettozero
    Gospel = Good news!

    Protestant Gospel = "these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

    Catholic Gospel = Believe in us because we'll never lead you wrong.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 1:02:28 PM PDT · 33 of 306
    Tao Yin to Petrosius
    Either the church has authority to make declarations regarding both the canon of Scripture and regarding doctrine.

    The church did not declare the canon of Scripture, but they confessed what was from the apostles. Similarly, the church does not declare doctrine, they can only confess what was already revealed.

    One cannot exist without the other for the declaration of the canon of Scripture is in itself a question of doctrine.

    The belief that apostles had authority to declare doctrine, and the judgement of what was authentic from the apostles, does not equal the authority of the apostles.

    Now if this authority existed in the past it must continue to exist today.

    If I recognize the authority of the apostles, that does not mean I have the authority of apostles. Recognizing the authority of the apostles is doctrine. Collating their authenticated works is not doctrine.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    06/29/2015 12:43:43 PM PDT · 29 of 306
    Tao Yin to Eric Pode of Croydon
    A better caption would be, "So this is where our Pope came from, proving his apostolic succession and powers of infallibility."
  • Why I'm Catholic, Sola Scriptura isn't Logical III

    06/29/2015 9:37:58 AM PDT · 21 of 49
    Tao Yin to Mercat
    All we claim is to have a “fallible collection of infallible books.

    Ha ha, that's rich. How about the Catholic's fallible collection of infallible teaching?

    Or better yet, please explain the nobility and manly act of suicide as described in Second Maccabees.

    Besides, that statement is a straw man. When determining canon, there was a set of criteria. The books in the collection passed the criteria. We have the witness of Christians since the beginning to testify to the validity of canon and we have the promise of the Holy Spirit as our helper. The promises were made to Christians, not to the Catholic Church.

    About the various points... They have been answered many times.

    1. It didn't make scriptural sense.
    2. It didn't make historical sense.
    3. It didn't make practical sense.
    4. Finally, it didn't make logical sense

    Scriptural sense? Please. The speakers at the time had authority. After they died, their writing had authority.

    Historical sense? Read the early church fathers. They always quote scripture. Tradition is useful, but it is subjugated to scripture.

    Practical sense? It is the rule of the Christian faith. People don't get to make stuff up. Either it can be backed up by scripture, or it can't. And even when it can be backed up with scripture, that defense has to be sound with the rest of scripture. That some twist scripture to their own ends is scriptural. But the solution given in scripture is not to look towards Rome, but to look towards scripture.

    Logical sense? Have you ever heard of the telephone game? Information written down is always more reliable that passed from person to person. Why is it more believable to say that the Holy Spirit will preserve the teaching of the Catholic Church than to say that the Holy Spirit was with the group of Christians that used a rigorous set of criteria to determine canon and that canon has been repeatedly confirmed throughout history.

    Logical sense? The scriptures are always true. The teaching of the Catholic Church is always true when it's infallible, but there is no infallible guide to know when it's infallible. My favorite is with the current Pope, if he teaches something as infallible that clearly isn't, all you have to do is question his validity as Pope.

  • Jones: Scripture Teaches That the Word of God is The Supreme Norm

    06/16/2015 6:48:18 AM PDT · 41 of 276
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    From your link... the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles

    You didn't read the article. Sola Scriptura does not mean that oral teaching doesn't have authority, but that it has power at the time it was spoken.

    If the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles were entrusted to the Catholic Church, then they should have written them down as soon as possible. If they were really entrusted to the Catholic Church, they could write them down today. But they can't! Except for the Bible, there is no sure teachings of Jesus. How about one sentence that Jesus said that's not in the Bible? Just one.

    So many leaps of logic in the link... Paul says that much Christian teaching is to be found in the tradition which is handed down by word of mouth (2 Tim. 2:2). And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

    Paul's oral authority is direct and before many witnesses. Paul never says to put authority is things people said he said.

    If the Roman Catholic Church claims 2 Timothy 2:2, please tell me one tradition that Paul taught before many witnesses that wasn't recorded in scripture.

  • Why I'm a Catholic. Sola Scriptura isn't Workable, Part II

    06/14/2015 12:12:00 PM PDT · 50 of 60
    Tao Yin to Campion
    But [the apostles] also say to hold fast to the traditions they taught, whether by letter or by word of mouth (2 Thess 2:15),

    I hold fast to the teachings of the apostles. I have their letters, given from them to the churches. Read in the churches since the beginning. This is a sure testament.

    Why should I put faith in something that someone said the apostles said? If the letters of the apostles didn't contain everything that we needed to know, why didn't the early Christians write it down?

    Please tell me something that I need to believe that isn't in the Bible that you believe the apostles taught.

    and they say that the men they ordain have the authority and power to teach (2 Tm 2:2)

    "And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well."

    There is a big difference between ability and authority. For oral tradition, there is a restriction that many witnesses are required. A single person can not say that the apostles taught them something.

    and that they are to be obeyed (Heb 13:7, 17)

    Do you even read the verses you quote? Heb 13:7 7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.

    How are we to know that they have spoken the word of God? The only sure word of God is from scripture. If I listen to a priest teach, the only word of God that he has spoken comes from scripture.

    Heb 13:17, Obey your leaders and submit to them. Yes. Our leaders are those who speak the word of God(v7). But don't get the order confused. They do not speak the word of God because they are our leaders, but rather they are our leaders because they speak the word of God. We are servants of the word, not servants of our leader. If our leader does not speak the word of God, he is to be reproached and then removed if he doesn't repent. We do not owe mindless obedience to someone who it not speaking the word of God.

    and that Scripture can be hard to understand and can be easily misunderstood by the "ignorant and unstable" (2 Pt 3:16).

    Scripture is not hard to understand. Misquote much? There are some things(v16) in Paul's letters that are hard to understand. Because some things are hard to understand, have patience(v15), don't get carried away by error(v17), grow in grace and knowledge(v18). Nothing about mindless submission.

  • Why I'm a Catholic. Sola Scriptura isn't Workable, Part II

    06/13/2015 6:39:41 PM PDT · 40 of 60
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

    So tired of this. Just back up a chapter to John 20.

    John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

    So the scriptures don't record everything, but they record enough for belief and salvation What value are the things not recorded? More belief? More salvation? Please. This is so tired.

    Just because Jesus did something that wasn't recorded means nothing. If you believe otherwise, why? It's not because of the scriptures. They contain enough for belief and salvation, and they put no value on things not recorded. It's not because of tradition. I do not know of a single action of Jesus that isn't in the scriptures, but is part of tradition that would make a hill of beans of difference.

    It's a fun poke to point to John 20 and 21, but it signifies nothing. It's really just sad and proves that context doesn't matter to Catholics.

  • Why I'm a Catholic. Sola Scriptura isn't Workable, Part II

    06/13/2015 8:07:38 AM PDT · 11 of 60
    Tao Yin to philly-d-kidder
    Where does it say Sola Scriptura in the Bible?

    The apostles repeatedly say to read their letters and stick to what they said and wrote. The Bible is our only sure source of apostolic teaching. Any other other interpretation equates the apostles with the Roman Catholic Church which creates some very weird interpretations. My favorite is that the church is build upon the apostles, but if the church is equal to the apostles, then the church is built upon itself.

    What Happened for the 1st 4 Centuries when there was no BIBLE?

    What tripe! The apostles wrote letters. The churches shared letters. The apostles said to read the letters they sent to other churches. The Bible only includes letters that have been read in the churches from the beginning.

    What happens to the Illiterate who can’t read?

    They heard the scriptures in the church. Other people read to them. You don't have to be able to read the Bible yourself to be saved.

    Of the 33576 Protestant sects in USA which one is the ONE TRUE sect representing the CHURCH?

    What a misunderstanding! A sect is a smaller group with somewhat different beliefs than the larger group to which they belong. I like the term synod better; those who walk together in faith.

    There is no ONE TRUE sect. While we all strive for correct doctrine, we all accept that our truth is not infallible. While we know we can make mistakes, we also accept that others can make mistakes as well. While we can choose to submit ourselves to the judgement of another so that we can maintain our synods, we understand that it is our duty to promote correct doctrine and question those who promote error.

  • 'God Will Forgive': Using Grace to Defend Abortion

    06/04/2015 5:46:00 AM PDT · 18 of 43
    Tao Yin to Pecos
    Repentance requires both true sorrow for what has been done and a commitment by the sinner that he/she will not commit that act again. Christ’s atonement was not an endless supply of “Get Out of Jail Free” cards for serial transgressors. Attitude counts.

    I can't agree in part. The commitment to not sin again doesn't mean that the sinner won't sin again. Christ's atonement is endless. Peter denied Christ 3 times. Should he have only been forgiven for the first one or two?

  • Schismatic Potential: A View from Germany

    06/02/2015 9:18:22 AM PDT · 6 of 7
    Tao Yin to Unam Sanctam
    Jesus’ charge to Peter in the Gospels that “you are the Rock upon which I will build my Church”

    Why do catholics put quotes around an interpretation? Those are not the words of Jesus in any Bible translation that ever existed.

  • Defenders of the Faith: Augustine, Aquinas, and the Evolution of Medieval Just War Theory

    05/21/2015 7:19:34 AM PDT · 8 of 13
    Tao Yin to NKP_Vet
    the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword

    Wow. Misquoting the Lord on a par with the snake in Genesis. Using a sword is fine. The quote is "lives by the sword". There is a world of difference between living by the sword and using a sword.

    Just like there is a difference between killing and murder.

  • How Can the (Catholic) Church Teach Angels?

    05/20/2015 7:40:20 PM PDT · 66 of 318
    Tao Yin to NYer
    What I find fascinating in speaking with Catholics about this is that they quote verses about the apostles and automatically substitute Church.

    Just about every time the New Testament reveals the radical nature of Christ’s authority, you will find in close proximity Christ then giving a similar authority to the Church.

    No! The authority is passed to the apostles. The apostles are not the same as the church. Just look at two of the verses you quoted.

    Eph. 2: the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

    1 Tim. 3 the household of God, which is the church

    So if the household of God is the church and the apostles is synonymous with the church, Eph. 2 would say that the church is built upon the church.

    The church is built upon the foundation, the church is not the foundation.

    And you've mis-translated 1 Tim. 3. The church is the bulwark of the truth. This has also been translated as buttress. Neither bulwark nor buttress means foundation. Seriously. Finding what you want to find rather than what scripture plainly says.


    05/20/2015 8:46:25 AM PDT · 56 of 272
    Tao Yin to piusv
    Being “subject to the Pontiff” does not include following immoral commands.

    Researching subjection to the Roman pontiff is interesting. It seems the prevailing Catholic interpretation is that subjection to the Roman pontiff is absolutely necessary for the salvation of Roman Catholics, but not for anyone else. This reconciles the infallible last sentence of Unam Sanctam with Vatican II.

    Further research shows the commerce clause of subjugation to the Roman pontiff. "We declare that in no way do we wish to usurp the jurisdiction of the King...And yet, neither the King nor anyone else of the faithful can deny that he is subject to us where a question of sin is involved."

    So if sin is involved, then the Roman pontiff rules supreme and even Kings must bow. In the life of man, where isn't sin involved? Yup, exactly like the commerce clause.


    05/20/2015 8:23:43 AM PDT · 54 of 272
    Tao Yin to piusv
    Being “subject to the Pontiff” does not include following immoral commands.

    That would be your own personal interpretation, unless you have a source for such an exception. And please don't quote scripture, as that would be your own personal interpretation as well.

    Second, what gives you the right to judge the morality of a Pontiff's orders? That again would be your own personal interpretation; your opinion of his decree.

    So it is your interpretation that your opinion is greater than the Pontiff's command.

  • Catholic Word of the Day: PARTIAL INDULGENCE, 05-18-15

    05/18/2015 5:47:15 PM PDT · 20 of 42
    Tao Yin to Grateful2God
    So Luther fought by posting his gripes

    Gripes, really?

    Luther stated "That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."

    Pope Leo X disagreed in a Papal Bull and thought burning heretics was a great idea.

    So do you support burning heretics, do you think burning heretics is something trivial, or do you agree with Luther.

    I thought we could all agree that burning heretics is a bad idea, but you can still find Catholics today that share Pope Leo X's opinion.

  • To Be Deep in History

    05/16/2015 10:36:56 AM PDT · 73 of 148
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." - John Henry Newman

    Reading the source of that quote just makes me sad. Here's another quote from Newman.

    It is maintained that doctrines which are associated with the later ages of the Church were really in the Church from the first, but not publicly taught, and that for various reasons:

    Secret teachings? He's making an appeal to secret teachings? Really?

    In the Bible, the apostles said they always preached in public. The Bible never makes allusion to secret teachings. Secret teachings are to be avoided, not embraced. There are no secret teachings and there have never been!

  • To Be Deep in History

    05/15/2015 3:19:08 PM PDT · 10 of 148
    Tao Yin to NYer
    "To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." - John Henry Newman

    While it's a fun quote, it's interesting to look into what John Henry Newman actually believed.

    Newman wrote in On the Development of Christian Doctrine: "In a higher world it is otherwise; but here below, to live is to change and to be perfect is to have changed often."

    Newman argued that Christian doctrines are not given once for all and simply passed down unchanged from generation to generation. Rather, like seeds that unfold into plants or rivers that deepen and broaden over time, they develop, their various aspects and implications emerging in the course of lively rumination.

    So his quote, while snappy, does not actually represent his opinion. Newman acknowledges that the Roman Catholic Church doesn't resemble the early church. A better statement would be "To be deep in history, opinionated bias, and a healthy dose a rationalization, is to be Roman Catholic."

  • Pope says environmental sinners will face God's judgment for world hunger

    05/13/2015 6:52:35 PM PDT · 32 of 51
    Tao Yin to 2ndDivisionVet
    Unless he was mistranslated again, how can we take this guy seriously? His ideology isn't christian. His understanding is that of a simpleton. Worse than a simpleton, his understanding is evil.

    His defense? It's only his opinion and doesn't matter. But if he ever speak while in the magic chair while wearing the fully hat, he'll be 100% right. In what world does this make sense?

    So, in theory, the leader of the whole christian church is a buffoon, but due the highest respect and reverence. No thanks.

    His statements are not his opinion when he calls down God's judgment on his own (not God's) personal classification of sinners. I don't care what title/lineage he has, he has no power to bind in this matter. None!

  • “The Greatest of All Protestant Heresies”?

    05/13/2015 9:20:13 AM PDT · 225 of 909
    Tao Yin to TexasFreeper2009
    You can't argue that salvation alone is enough, but then say that doing good works after being saved could jeopardize your salvation.

    It really depends on why you do the good works. If you are doing the works to try to merit heaven, then you are placing yourself under the law; denying Jesus' merit and replacing it with your own. Your own merit, under the law, is insufficient.

    Galatians 5: 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

    I know there are better verses, but the idea is the same. We are righteous because of our belief. If we attempt to be righteous because of our works, we are placing our justification under the law, and we will fail.

    Could doing good works, for the wrong reason, jeopardize our salvation? Possibly.

    Mark, chapter 3, he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation

    Saying that Jesus' merit is insufficient for our salvation and requires our work is blasphemous. Our works are a fruit of our salvation and is a visual testimony to our salvation. The idea that our works earn us salvation is a dangerous belief.

  • Global Warming Wreaks Havoc On Antarctic Research Stations

    05/13/2015 6:10:22 AM PDT · 4 of 17
    Tao Yin to Stevenc131
    Actually I believe global sea ice has been at record levels, an inconvenient truth ignored by the warmists.

    I believe 2-d surface area is up, but for some parts of Antarctica 3-d volume is down. Of course the part that is down has a volcano underneath...

  • NY Post: Pope Francis finally opens door to reconciliation for women after abortions? (Media Mangle)

    05/12/2015 12:57:53 PM PDT · 34 of 43
    Tao Yin to Mrs. Don-o
    But if the Catholic doesn't bother getting a dispensation, it's taken as a rejection of the Catholic sacrament and is rather more serious, akin to a rejection of the Church. And in this case,the marriage would not be considered valid for that reason

    This can be remedied, I think, by Confession and also having the marriage re-witnessed in the Church.

    Am I correct here?

    Yes, I believe you are correct.

    I recently had cause to investigate this matter. My protestant cousin-in-law married a catholic. They were married in a protestant church. I was asked to be a sponsor for their child, baptized in a protestant church.

    I was really confused by the father's strong statement that "I'm catholic", but his lack of attention to anything catholic. He doesn't attend mass. Didn't receive a dispensation. Allowed his daughter to be baptized protestant. Yet he still defines himself as catholic...

    I really need to have a talk with him. I am a strong believer that a family should share a common faith. Since he is a catholic in name only, and since he asked me to be a sponsor for his child and I promised to see the child raised in the evangelical lutheran church, I'm going to ask him to consider joining the synod of his wife and child. A family should share a faith.

    On a related note, a few years ago I had a similar conversation with a protestant friend married to a catholic wife. I told him a family should share a common faith. He took the conversation to heart. He investigated the catholic church and converted to catholic. His family attend mass regularly and his children are the better for it.

    The funny thing is that now my ex-protestant friend now tells me that I'm in rebellion from the true church. I have to laugh when he starts a sentence with "You protestants..."

  • NY Post: Pope Francis finally opens door to reconciliation for women after abortions? (Media Mangle)

    05/12/2015 11:47:32 AM PDT · 21 of 43
    Tao Yin to vladimir998
    That’s completely false. Being divorced does not cut you off from the sacraments. If you divorce and remarry outside of the Church, that is a different story because then you’re nothing more than shacked up in the Church’s point of view. Once again, just to make this clear: BEING DIVORCED DOES NOT CUT YOU OFF FROM THE SACRAMENTS.

    Very true. Just being married outside of the church is enough to cut you off from the sacrament. Example: If a catholic man marries a protestant woman in a protestant church without permission from a catholic priest, he should be denied the Eucharist in a catholic church.

  • The Church Prior to the Reformation: The Mass

    05/11/2015 1:02:49 PM PDT · 3 of 72
    Tao Yin to RnMomof7
    What, precisely, was being protested?

    If you want to be precise, the protest was against the Diet of Speyer (1529), which "aimed to reverse the policy of religious tolerance adopted in 1526".

  • What Is The Brown Scapular

    05/10/2015 1:04:00 PM PDT · 400 of 722
    Tao Yin to metmom
    She did NOT need to be perfect and nobody is disrespecting her by stating the truth about her.

    This is very true. If we look at Jesus, everything about Him was humble. He was born in a manger, rather than an inn or mansion or castle. On palm Sunday, He entered the town riding on a donkey and colt, rather than a magnificent war horse.

    It makes no sense that He would be humble about everything except His choice of mother. Why would Jesus choose the most wonderful thing in all creation for His mother?

    Mary was a godly woman. God called and she answered.

    With Jesus, He knows me, loves me, and hear my prayers. I have these promises in scripture.

    With Mary, I have no reason to know that she knows me, loves me, or hears by prayer. There is no scripture, early church father, or infallible teaching that states any of this. If I'm wrong, please post a reference. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time with fiction and a promise I have no reason to believe.

  • What Is The Brown Scapular

    05/09/2015 10:54:39 AM PDT · 103 of 722
    Tao Yin to WhistlingPastTheGraveyard
    Speaking of keeping people ignorant of history, have the Lutherans started doing Sunday readings of “On the Jews and Their Lies” yet?

    Other than a nice zinger, why would you ask if Lutherans read that in church?

    Luther is not a prophet. He is one of the writer's of the Lutheran confessional document: the Book of Concord. Additionally, Luther's small catechism is an amazing summary of christian belief.

    Lutherans believe that all men are sinful. We are not surprised or offended that people are flawed. We take the wheat and leave the chaff.

    That people have taken Luther out of context and done horrible things doesn't surprise us. By context, I mean by understanding all of his writings and how they fit together. How many horrible things have been done in the name of God? This happens throughout history.

    If you want to compare Luther with the bad Popes or even some of the good Popes, I'd welcome the comparison. Ever heard of the Pope's pear?

  • Mary: Mother of God

    05/08/2015 5:08:50 AM PDT · 21 of 62
    Tao Yin to rwa265
    Since Mary is Jesus’ mother, it must be concluded that she is also the Mother of God

    False. Mother of God is a horrible translation of Theotokos. Theotokos means "God-Bearer". Theotokos is important because of what is says about Jesus.

    "Mother of God" is important because of what it says about Mary. "Mother of God" is wrong.

    If you read one of the creeds, it says that Mary is the Theotokos, with respect to the manhood. Mary bore the manhood of Jesus, but she did not bear the godhood. Jesus was god from conception, but his godhood was not contained in Mary.

    So, you can say that Mary is the Mother of Jesus' manhood, but you can not say that Mary is the Mother of Jesus' godhood.

  • The Crafting of the 4th Century Roman Church, Doctrine, and Papacy

    05/07/2015 7:51:12 AM PDT · 43 of 56
    Tao Yin to NYer
    St. Ignatius of Antioch had a much different view of bishops than the current Roman view.

    "Wherefore it is fitting that ye should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop."

    His Epistle to the Ephesians tells the Ephesians to follow their local bishop. The bishop is the center of the local church.

    "For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp."

    The elders and ministers (presbytery) of the local church are to work with the local bishop.

    "For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ."

    All bishops are equal. Everyone submits to their local bishop. There is no hierarchy of bishops.

    Additionally, St. Ignatius never mentions anything about a line of successors. He says to submit to your local bishop. Words that I take to heart and follow.

  • Aiming to deepen rite’s meaning, Baptist pastor in Ohio baptizes infant

    05/06/2015 10:47:15 AM PDT · 61 of 78
    Tao Yin to imardmd1
    Please note that the malefactor was one of, if not the, last soul saved under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant, for whom water baptism was not an issue. He was saved by faith alone in Jesus alone, the same way that people are saved under the New Covenant. However, obedience to the command of Christ to be inducted into the Company of The Committed, His Bride, is to submit oneself to the baptismal rite of accepting the role as a disciple under the New Covenant.

    I would strongly disagree. Baptism isn't required for salvation. If some accepted Jesus as their savior and died in a car crash before they could be baptized, there is no theological problem with saying that they are saved.

    If someone isn't baptized and rejects the idea that they need to be baptized for salvation, then there is a theological problem that is above my pay grade.

    The thief on the cross is someone who died before he could be baptized, rather than someone who rejected baptism. There is no theological problem with the thief's salvation without baptism.

  • Aiming to deepen rite’s meaning, Baptist pastor in Ohio baptizes infant

    05/06/2015 10:38:53 AM PDT · 59 of 78
    Tao Yin to Iscool
    My question is for those Protestants who believe baptism to be a sacrament (vice an ordinance): do you accept the validity of a baptism performed by a group that believe it’s an ordinance (and not a sacrament)?

    We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sin. A baptism is water and the word. If there is water and the word, there is a baptism. There is no need to re-baptize, as if the first one didn't take.

  • Did the Early Church Fathers Believe in Sola Scriptura?

    05/05/2015 10:53:19 AM PDT · 44 of 61
    Tao Yin to Salvation
    The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

    Why ignore John 20:30-31?

    30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

    Jesus did a lot not written in Scripture, but what was written is sufficient for belief and life.

    If scripture wasn't sufficient, why didn't the people that knew the additional information that was required write it down?

    What does it matter that everything wasn't recorded? Why would a two thousand game of telephone be more reliable that a written record that is sufficient for belief?

    Option A: Scripture, sufficient for belief, says...

    Option B: Person 1 says that person 2 said that person 3 said that person 4 said that person 5 said that person 6 said that person 7 said that person 8 said that person 9 said that ... that person 120 said that Peter said that "I am the rock and my successors will rule the church until the end."

    Option A please.

  • Rome's Meaningless Claim to "Unbroken Chain Of Succession"

    05/04/2015 8:12:55 AM PDT · 172 of 208
    Tao Yin to LurkingSince'98
    You have Scripture and hundreds of millions of protestants each with their own separate but equal personal interpretations of what that scripture means, each acting like their own little gods who know better than anyone what scripture means.

    I'm not sure you understand how this protestant thing works. Sure, some believe in the anything goes, personal interpretation, what the words says to me today approach.

    Others are part of a disciplined group of believers who are members of declared synods: people who walk together in faith. As part of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, we hold that Scripture is the supreme Truth and the Book of Concord is in complete agreement with that Truth.

    Members of our synod are not free to interpret any verse in any way they see fit. If their interpretation disagrees with our confessional documents, their errors will be shown in scripture. If they maintain their error, pastors can be removed from office, while a member of the laity may be refused communion if the error is grave enough.

  • Was The Papacy Established By Christ? (Part 2)

    05/02/2015 5:59:04 PM PDT · 13 of 38
    Tao Yin to LurkingSince'98
    The best part is they (cyprian,et al) are DEAD and their opinions didnt prevail because they were just their opinions

    What about "neither will I ever take and interpret [the scriptures] otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers"?

    Cyprian is supposed to endorse the primacy of Peter in the text of "The Unity of the Catholic Church", but I can't find the support.

    Cyprian - Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power.

    I guess I should read more of Cyprian's text... But it seems like another case of Catholic quotes and assertions saying the exact opposite of what they say.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 7:14:02 PM PDT · 72 of 835
    Tao Yin to BipolarBob
    Jesus was fully man and fully God. Mary was the mother of the fully man part.

    Agreed. Mary is the Theotokos because of what it says about Jesus. That Jesus was fully God from conception. If you read the creed that include Theotokos, it says that Mary was the Theotokos, with regard to the manhood.

    Theotokos is properly translated as "God-Bearer". As in Mary bore the manhood of God.

    Mother of God is totally inappropriate for two reasons. First, because it inverts the order and puts the bearer before the God. Second, because people use the term "Mother of God" as an honorific for Mary, perverting the purpose of the title. Theotokos is not to honor Mary, but to proclaim the truth about Jesus.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 7:06:17 PM PDT · 69 of 835
    Tao Yin to ebb tide
    Martin Luther, the apostate, removed seven books from the Bible.

    You mean the seven books of the old testament that the Jewish people don't accept? The books they officially rejected in 100 AD at the Council of Jamnia? Yeah, that was totally Martin Luther.

  • Peter and the Papacy

    05/01/2015 7:00:18 PM PDT · 65 of 835
    Tao Yin to ebb tide
    Two questions:

    Do you deny Mary was the mother of Jesus Christ?


    Do you deny Jesus Christ is God?


    Yes or no answers will suffice.

    My turn.

    Do you believe Mary was the mother of God the father?

    Do you believe that God the father is God?

    What is the correct translation of Theotokos?

    What is the significance of the title Theotokos?

    Is Theotokos important for what it says about Mary or what it says about Jesus?