Acts 8:18

Grant,

A pope's length of service doesn't necessarily relate to whether or not he makes any infallible, ex cathedra definitions of doctrine. (For example, Pope John Paul II hasn't made one yet, in 20+ years.)

But in Benedict IX's case, it's true that he did not do so, for whatever reason.

Mark

 

Thank you, Lisa!!!!!!!!!!

(So many people don't, it seems!)

Mark

 

Hi Lisa,

You can disagree to your heart's content!

All I ask is that you really disagree with "what the RCC teaches" and not with a "straw man."

(I don't mind at all when people honestly disagree with me. Actually, that's when fun, friendly discussions can happen.)

God bless,

Mark

 

Lisa --

You have two choices here:

You can continue to look at the sinners in the Church. This will confuse and disappoint you and make you question the veracity of the Church. This is what the evil one wishes you to do.

Jesus promised us that there would be tares growing right along with the wheat in the kingdom. He also promised us that the net of the kingdom would bring up good fish and BAD fish. He did not say that the tares or the bad fish would be kept from attaining to high office.

The tares are not the field. They grow in the field. The bad fish are not the net. They are caught by the net. Try to make that distinction. Christ keeps the Church pure by the oversight of His Holy Spirit as promised in Matthew 16: 18. This is most observable when you see that even the most wicked and corrupt popes did not change the moral or doctrinal teaching of the Church to fit and excuse their evil behavior. Must be a reason for that.

Second choice: you can begin to examine the writings of modern apologists such as Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, Peter Kreeft, and other men who converted to the Church from very anti-catholic backgrounds. They had no intention of converting, yet they found that once they put down their prejudices and gave the Church's doctrines a very thorough and unprejudiced examination, they were compelled by both history and theology to convert to the Church. In writing from a Protestant background, they are well able to take the objections they once had and show why these objections are in error.

I do hope you might choose the latter course, especially since you are about to have a Catholic in your family. Who knows, you might even find it an interesting pursuit! I sure did, once I put down the axe I was grinding with the Church.

Brother Ed - considerably happy convert to the Faith.

PS I don't doubt you have given many a Catholic layperson headaches. About 90% of Catholics do not know WHY they believe what they believe. It is fairly easy therefore to confuse them, frustrate them, and in some cases, draw them out of the Church.

[ January 08, 2003, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

What exactly do you mean by saying "Christ keeps the Church pure?" Because, um, the RCC has not been and is not pure.

You didn't read my post, did you? Let me say it again. Maybe this time you will not read by it.

The field is not the tares. The net is not the bad fish. Figure it out.

In regards to Matt 16:18, He makes no such promise. What Jesus says in this verse is the Church will prevail and defeat Satan. But He never says it will be easy, nor does He say it will be lead incorruptibly.

Completely delusional statement. If the Church does not lead incorruptibly and infallibly, then She becomes one with the evil one, ceases to preach the Gospel, and becomes in league with the wicked one to damn souls.

Is that what you are saying? That Christ ALLOWED all this to happen to HIS BRIDE? That He would allow MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of souls in the first 1500 years of Christendom to go to hell because they were not Protestant?

I DON'T THINK SO!!!

Maybe YOUR Jesus. Mine loves mankind, died for us, and would not allow His passion to be so wasted.

I've read some Scott Hahn. His arguments don't impress me.

You don't wish to be impressed. You really don't much care for truth. You have an agenda and that blinds your eyes.

What do you say about Roman Catholic clergymen who have converted from RCism?

Better than that, what does the Bible say about those who turn from the truth to follow lies?

 

Brother Ed,

C'mon now, we need to give Lisa her due. It's certainly permissible to not be impressed by Scott Hahn -- depending on what you're looking for, and which of his books you've read.

For example, "Rome Sweet Home" is written very much from the heart (or I guess I should say "hearts," since both Scott and Kimberly tell their stories). If you're looking for a straightforward, detailed presentation of theological issues, that book just isn't intended to be one (although it does touch on a few such issues in passing).

His other books, in large part, are intended to make complex theological issues -- e.g. the trinity, covenant theology, etc. -- accessible to a popular audience. They're certainly not the "last word" on any topic.

We can't accuse Lisa of "not caring much for truth" just because Hahn's books offered a hamburger and fries when she was looking for London broil, or whatever. (What a lousy analogy that was! -- oh well)

Similarly, while I think you view "Matt. 16:18" as sort of a shorthand reference to a whole series of scriptural passages and theological arguments relating to Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Church, you can't blame Lisa for not "reading your shorthand" when you haven't bothered to go into detail. (Although frankly, since there are book-length treatments of the subject, that level of detail probably isn't possible in a message board format).

Anyhow, the upshot is this. Lisa is researching Catholic beliefs, laudably, because her daughter is marrying a Catholic. To date, at least on certain issues, she hasn't had the Catholic "argument" presented to her in a way that has really resonated with her. That's not her fault -- it's ours.

Lisa, if you can let us know what issues are of particular interest (or concern), and give us some idea of your research to date and what you think is lacking, we may be able to point you to some resources that meet your needs. (At least, we'll give it a try -- I don't claim to have an encyclopedic knowledge of all the books that are out there on every issue!)

God bless,

Mark H.

 

Hi Lisa,

I didn't realize I was interrupting a meeting of old ... um ... acquaintances! Y'all enjoy your discussion, and give a call if I can help (on either side!)

Take care,

Mark

 

I simply disagree with most teachings

Well, Mark, there it is. It is not for lack of understanding or study. It is just disagreement.
I think that Scott Hahn's discussions of the covenantal family are marvelous. I only wish I hadn't been such a chowder head and listened to him 12 years ago!!

I was just saying that I didn't take offense at CC.

Drat!!!

Guess I'll have to try harder.

I know how he is.

And how is I? No, seriously, what do you see me as (besides a rather ample pain in the tuchas!!)

The things I can not accept about RCism:

1. Real Presence
2. Sacrafice of the Mass
3. Veneration of Mary (Not too big of a problem)
4. Purgatory
5. Papal Infallibility

That's probably enough for now.

You know, onct upon a time, I didn't accept any of those things myself. They are kind of the "biggies" to most Protestants. And the biggest problem of all is that trying to explain them in the limitations of such a forum is just....well, an exercise in futility. There just isn't enough time or space to do justice to it all.

1. The Real Presence.

Have you listened to Scott Hahn's explanation of the parallels between the Eucharist and the marital act? It is pretty darn good stuff, and goes the heart of the relationship that God desires to have with us for all eternity.

Hey, here's another good read from Peter Kreeft:

Is there sex in Heaven?

No, this is not a piece of fallacious nonsense. G'wan, read it!! Kreeft is a professor of philosophy at Boston College (yeah, dem darn Jesuits again!!). But this is a really thought provoking article. Believe me, it won't take you where you think it is going by the title!!

2. The Sacrifice of the Mass

Why is it a problem that the sacrifice is eternal and never ending. Chronological time is a phenomena which we live in, not God. Scripture says that the Lamb of God was sacrificed "before the foundation of the world". It is....eternal. All we do is make it present on the altar for the remission of our sins.

Let me ask this question which just popped into my mind:

Why would the sacrifice of Christ be done "before the foundation of the world?" In other words, what did it accomplish in the pre-creation eternity of God? (I have a sort of answer, which oddly enough, I got from my days as a Presbyterian)

3. Veneration of Mary

This is NOT a big problem for you?

Yer kiddin' right? I mean, this is the one which just KILLS most Protestants who are looking to come into the Church. It was like HUGE to most of us.

4. Purgatory

You know, beyond all the fluff that abounds in most Catholic apologia, there is a very simple explanation: if what the Reformers taught, based on Luther's seminal idea of Christ covering us as snow covers dunghills, is true, i.e., that once we accept Jesus, all our sins, past, present, and future, are forgiven once and for all and never brought to mind again, then there indeed is no need for any further purging.

So the real question is not "Is Purgatory a true teaching?", but rather "Is 'imputed righteousness' a true interpretation of the book of Romans?"

So, have you listened to Hahn's tape series on justification? It is small, only 4 tapes, but covers this issue quite nicely. Also, Robert Sungenis' book "Not by faith" alone, pokes holes in the idea of such "legal fantasy".

Papal Infallibility

Well, gosh, if we don't have SOMEONE to correctly interpret theological and moral issues, how do we know WHO to trust? Do you see the problem with this? On this board alone there have to be at least 50 or more theological opinions, each of which promotes itself as the whole truth. How would I, as a garden variety pagan, know which one I should follow?

As I said, hardly detailed answers.

Okay, I'll go back to being a grouch now.

Brother Ed

 

[ February 05, 2003, 11:45 AM: Message edited by: Daveth ]

 

I struggled with the real presence for years. Then I read John chapter 6 as a Methodist and wondered why I had missed it. Why had I been denied this gift. No, I don't have theological references etc. I know that when I accepted Jesus at his word. I was much happier.

Hope this helps

Cameron in Texas

 

Do you really believe God intended for it to be so complicated?

Actually, I don't find any of it complicated now that I have come to understand it. It just looks complicated from the outside looking in. As I said, been there, done that.

The key to understanding Catholic teaching and doctrine is the covenant. Without that, I think Catholic theology does seem pretty senseless.

Missed that one. Do you have a link?

Ummmmm.......let me see if I can find it and get back to ya. Scott has an awful lot of stuff out there.

Okay, I read it. Um . . . a person as Kreeft is seeking to explain it doesn't "has sex" as in "man" and "woman." Your identity is not a possession, it's a description. I am a woman, I don't have a woman. Course, me being merely and fundamental evangelical, who hasn't seen the light and reached christian maturity, (which we all know will not happen until I become RC according to you) I have absolutely no idea what your point is with that article.

The point is the INTIMATE UNION we will have with God in Heaven, of which the marital act is but a very, very teeny tiny type and shadow of. In fact, most all things on earth are shadows of the real.

You know, I was watching an absolutely MAGNIFICENT sunset one evening and found myself wondering "What is it about beauty that attracts us so much?" And it occurred to me. That which is beautiful reaches inside us by the portals of our eyes and appeals to the yearning of our souls for the ever present and eternal beauty that is God Himself. The beauty of a sunset is but a very tiny reflection of the immense and grand beauty of the One Who made that sunset. We are awed by the Creation, but in that awe, we long for the Creator Himself.

Kreeft's point is that the love, union, and compete intimacy in the marital act is a tiny foretaste of what we long to have forever in UNION with the Blessed Trinity. Being a philosopher, he just tends to build a rather word (and I think interesting) edifice around that concept.

Nothing in Scripture gives the least indication that this is continual.

I gave you a verse, referring to Christ being the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. Anything wrong with that verse.

I don't think God would have included verses such as

Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Good grief, this one actually proves my point. If the sacrifice is OVER, how does God smell it or regard it as a sweet smelling savour RIGHT NOW?? Seems that it must be ever present for God to continue to smell it and be pleased by it.

Hbr 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

This refers to something entirely different. High priests did not do regular sacrifices. They did YOM KIPPUR. This is a reference to Christ as our Great High Priest and the One Who offers eternal YOM KIPPUR for the sins of the people.

Hbr 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Same thing. YOM KIPPUR. This has nothing to do with our personal sins.

Hbr 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

More of the same. YOM KIPPUR.

Look. Do you know what YOM KIPPUR was? Let me know, please.

Hbr 13:15 By him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is, the fruit of [our] lips giving thanks to his name.

Okay. This is interesting. If the sacrifice of Jesus took away all need for sacrifice, why then does St. Paul (the Orthodox believe that St. Paul wrote Hebrews) give this command to offer the sacrifice of our praise? How can God be pleased with the sacrifice of our praise when Jesus has made the ultimate sacrifice of the Cross?

So, if Christ's sacrifice is continual, weren't the writers of the NT aware of this? Clearly they speak of the Sacrifice as a one time thing, done, and over? Why don't they speak of it as if it is ongoing? Clearly, the continual sacrifice God wants from us is "our lips giving thanks to His name."

Clearly they are speaking in terms, first of all, of the chronological event in time, not of God's perspective. Secondly, WHY is there an altar in Heaven, seen by St. John some 40 years after the fact in Revelation? Altars serve only ONE purpose -- sacrifice. What's the point? Jesus died, the event is done and He is enthroned in Heaven. Why an altar if there is no sacrifice? Ya gotta "splain" dat one, please.

The other view, of course, is the finished work of YOM KIPPUR, which was the one time sacrifice in time for the people of God, the Church. YOM KIPPUR is different from sin offerings for personal sins.

I have an answer also, but I'll have to get back to this one later.

Okay. The answer I got as a Presbyterian is that because of the eternal nature of Christ's sacrifice, God could deal with the world in grace. If there was no eternal sacrifice, and no prevenient application of it to the world, God would have had to immediately have judged any and all sin.

Honest. I can separate "veneration" and "worship." I do not revere Mary or venerate her as RCs do, however, this just isn't something that bothers me too much.

Yeah, well actually I sometimes feel a bit uneasy with the amount of veneration from RC's myself. We Orthodox are a bit more subdued in our love and reverence for Her. I personally think it to be the right mixture of honor and reverence without the overboard language of St. Alphonso Ligouri, for instance.

You know, RCism would be in big trouble, if all apologists were like you.

Well, doesn't matter, since I am not RC. But the bigger question is still this: is "imputed righteousness" true or not? If it is, then there is no need for purgation after death. But if it is false (which I maintain it is), then you have to ask yourself what happens to your sins which are on your soul when you die?

And as for your shot about my apologetics skills -- yeah, not only am I not Scott Hahn, but the Internet is a lousy place to try to give a detailed answer to a good question like that of justification. It just doesn't work well on forum boards.

Well, gosh, if God thought we couldn't do it without an infallible leader, why didn't He make sure that someone we could trust was left in charge--like--Oh, I donno---Jesus? Why didn't Jesus just stay?

Because He had to go cleanse the temple in Heaven and be seated as King at the right hand of God, awaiting His enemies to be made His footstool. So why not choose someone to be His prime minister and give that person the gift of infallibility so that the Church could keep to the truth?

How would I, as a garden variety pagan, know which one I should follow?

Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

This still doesn't answer the question, does it? There are 100 different methods of salvation, justification, etc. right on this board alone. And there are twice that number of kooky cults out there who refer to the Bible for their beliefs. Now how should some poor pagan know the difference?

I await your wise response.

Wise? If there is one thing I am becoming painfully aware of, it is that most of my reponses fall into the category of smarty pants or just plain arrogant.

Maybe someday I'll be wise....

Maybe........

Cordially in Christ,

Brother Ed

 

Welcome aboard, there are some real mean-spirited people on this "Other religion.”

Yeah, we Catholics are PROFOUNDLY aware of that. Can't even begin to tell you the number of times I have been told that I am going to hell because I am a Catholic.

I found some techniques they normally uses.

1) Rubberstamp technique, they regurgitate doctrine without the least hint of concern as to providing a scriptural proof. Otherwise, known as propaganda.

Oh, you mean like spouting off about the so-called "rapture of the church" as if it is true without any reference to the context of the so called "proof texts" for it?

2)Cut-and-paste technique, they find the closest doctrinal defense on a website, they stick it into their clipboard and post away. Upon receiving a spiritual rebuttal, they switch topic to something and then utilize the rubberstamp technique.

I cut and paste when I get tired of saying the same thing over and over and over again. There are only just so many times I care to bang my fingers on a keyboard for those whose main concern is not learning but argumentation.

3) Accusation of hate technique, They insist vehemently that your are full of hate. They feel it is always advisable to paint you as hateful.

Let's see.....I have been called a "papist", a "romanist", told I am going to hell, told I am a heretic and accused of being delusional. Yes, I generally respond in kind. Someday I'll manage to get this "love your enemies" and "do good to those who despitefully use you" thing down pat. Meanwhile, I just keep the confessional seat nice and warm.

I generally see most of this directed at Catholics, although from time to time I see fellow Protestants havin' at each other hot and heavy. There's a lot of sand throwing in this playpen.

In this technique they always contain a reference to their great humility.

I have never seen anything from ANYONE on this board on either side of the fence which smacks of what you have just insinuated. I think someone ticked you off and you are responding in anger to them.

4) Allegory interpretation technique, Any text can mean anything they want, they interpreted it under a metaphor interpretation technique, they use this with the rubberstamp technique. Most often used with philosophy.

Part of interpreting the Bible is the OT types to the NT antetypes (fulfillment). For instance, Christ is our Passover Lamb. Therefore, we have the lamb in the OT which is the type of the true Lamb of God in the NT.

Of course, when we Catholics go to great lengths to prove a point (such as the recent debate on the New Eve) we are accused of the above. Yet Evangelical Protestants can come forward with the most flimsy evidence possible for the so called "rapture of the church" or other such doctrines and act as if they have the imprimateur of infallibility to what they teach, right?

5) Words without meaning technique, If they are receiving any roadblocks by any particular
word you previously gave in your post, or if what you described is the definition of a word detrimental to their defense, they simply deny the basic word meaning of the term.

Oh Brooooooother!!! This is Protestant to a "T"!!! It is also equally Protestant to put one's own meanings to a word instead of referring to both the context, the historical meaning, and the way it is used in light of the setting.

For instance, Scripture says that the Holy Spirit is the "earnest" of our inheritance. I cannot believe the theological and hermeneutical gymnastics I have seen to avoid the obvious conclusion one must come to by using that word in the context of its meaning. It's a real dance, I tell ya!!!

6) Bait and Switch technique, If their posts are being shot down repeatedly, it is because they are staying on one topic for too long. If their perpetual defense is becoming an embarrassment, they switch it to a different defense, and pretend you have denied it and act outraged at your heresy.

I am not embarrassed by my defenses. Threads die out when both sides say all that they have to say. And I don't get into all the threads here because I will admit that I am not knowledgeable on every subject which is discussed here. For instance, the thread on the "Apocraphal books" a while back. I stay away from that like the plague because I haven't studied that at all.

On the other hand, I have never seen Carson Webber at a loss for words or explanations. Seems that usually what happens is that those to whom he is talking get frustrated with him and start attacking him because he is not an easy target. The boy knows his stuff.

7) Attack Sola Scriptural technique. They will put forth that scripture is only one of the sources of God's revelation. However, due to the overwhelming levels of contradictory doctrines, they will usually have to use the rubberstamping technique.

That's because "sola scriptura" is not taught in the Scriptures. Most converts to the faith find this out pretty early in their journey across the Tiber. They also find out a lot of other inventions that the Reformers dreamed up which did not exist prior to the 16th century!!

8) Attack Martin Luther technique. They use this as a companion post to the attack Sola Scriptural technique. They always refer to you as a Protestant to imply that Biblical Christianity began with the "Reformation."

First of all, Biblical Christianity is Catholicism. It is the faith which was held "by all, everywhere, and at all times". That which the Reformers made up was not known prior to the 16th century. In a court of law, the evidence would be that there was no Christianity outside of the Catholic Faith prior to the 16th century. There are no extant writings, there is nothing of Church councils called to discuss Protestant ideas. In short, the only people who were outside the Church prior to 1517 were the heretics like the Montanists, the Donatists, the Arians, etc. Now if you wish to claim their patrimony, go ahead. But if you know anything about what they taught or believed, you will swing a wide arc around them.

They insist the opponent is a follower of Martin Luther. They do not accept any denials of this. They rubberstamp you as a follower of Martin Luther, if you refute this accusation.

Well, Mr. Protestant, WHO do you follow if not Luther and Calvin. It is said of the Reformation that "Luther laid the egg that Calvin hatched" regarding their doctrines. And modern Evangelicalism is the epistomological result of their rebellion, for since they had the "right" to leave the Church and change doctrines to suit their tastes, it was not long before the Puritans came along and exercised the same rebellion against them. Evangelicalism is just the last stage of the inevitable.

But seriously....WHO do you follow? Hmmmmmmm?

9) Most important technique is that they try to get you to lose your faith in Jesus. That why they come on this web site.

I came on this web site for one reason --- to keep trying to explain the Catholic Faith and defuse the egregious lies being told about the Catholic Faith. I stick around because I do have a rather sinful taste for a good headknocking arguement, but that is my shortcoming. BTW -- when I first came here, I was told to leave, but after some consideration, Clint opened this particular site with an invitation:

"Y'all Catholics can post here, but nowhere else on the board".

I consider this gracious, since it is NOT my board, and they have every right to run it the way they want, including total exclusion of Catholics if they desire.

But they will say it is you who is trying to hurt their faith.

Nope. Can't hurt the truth. Been searching for it all my life, since I repented and returned to my baptism in my 20's. In fact, it has deepend my faith, since I have been asked some darn good questions and have had to research and get answers for them. That's a good thing. It's a shame that you don't try it instead of spitting out knee jerk reactions to everything we Catholics post. I know this is so because I see the time lapse between posts. Sometimes I am hardly finished hitting the submit button before a "refutation" to my post pops up.

And I'm supposed to think that the respondent has thought things through, right?

So remember to do all thing in ‘LOVE’.

I'll try. But given the nature of these boards, it is darn hard sometimes.

You know, it occurred to me the other day that we tend to talk to each other in the anonimity of these boards in a manner which we would not do if we were face to face. I bet we would be different people if we were all having pizza and cokes together and discussing these things. Oh, there would still be passion, no doubt, but I bet there would be more respect also.

And yes, that goes double for me!!!

Brother Ed