Have been added to Da Rulz:
23. The following terms are pejorative and their use as actual
descriptors (as opposed, for example, to quoting someone else’s use of
them for purposes of critique) constitutes rudeness: "Romanist,"
"Romish," "Roman" (when used to mean or as a substitute for
"Catholic"), "Roman Church" (when used to mean the entire Catholic
Church, as opposed to the Roman church sui iuris that exists
within the Catholic Church), "Papist," Papistic," "Papistical,"
"Popish," and any cognate terms based on the terms "Roman" or "Pope."The term to be used on this blog is Catholic, without scare quotes.
This is a Catholic blog, and Catholics are to be called Catholics on it.
24. It constitutes rudeness to make inflammatory assertions that one
is not prepared to back up by anything more than hearsay (e.g., "Mother
Theresa prayed to Hindu idols. I know because my friend said so.").Inflammatory claims are those likely to inflame passions. An inflammatory claim can be true. But because of its emotion-stirring character, it requires concrete evidence (more than just hearsay) to back it up if the discourse is to be kept civil and not degenerate into an impassioned muddle.
(NOTE: I’ve added clarifiers to these rules based on issues that came up in the combox below. The corresponding changes have been made to Da Rulz page as well.)
Jimmy
Just like Trent you write new rules to limit questions and discussion on topics which otherwise you are not prepared to answer. I will be monitoring your blog to see if anyone here ever shares a personal story or testimony of any kind that cannot be supported by anything except their word.
BTW, there was no inflammatory assertions made. My friend had direct conversation with MT before her passing. I am sorry her testimony which I also supported by her own words below undermined the assertions of many here. Who, btw, according to your rules, cannot back up any claims to the contrary that I have posted.
I guess that’s the duplicity of RCC teaching. When the personal testimony supports your views, you canonize it; when it opposes your views, you make up more rules to limit honest and forthright discourse.
Talk about rude…
In His grace alone,
Steve
2 Cor. 4:5-7
PS – If you won’t take the testimony of my RCC friend from several years ago, I would like to point out to you that Dr. John MacArthur had a similar experience directly with Mother Teresa as well when he met her. Are you prepared to say that John, myself, or any other Protestant for that matter is guilty of inflammatory assertions–essentially calling us liars – OR are you prepared to accept the fact that maybe MT’s confession does not fall in line with the Scriptures and that her view of salvation other than through Christ alone is specious and errant?
Sound like fair rules. Even if they were not, it is your blog. Don’t know of people who go to other people’s homes and say mean things — and then object to when their host asks them to be polite. And then say they will be monitoring them.
To those who don’t like the rules, my suggestion is to post somewhere else — or on your own blog.
Just my 2 cents.
What if you believe those united to a Pope are not part of a catholic Church (that “catholic” cannot be truly applied to those united to the Pope)?
What should you call it? Should one use scare quotes?
But Jimmy! I like using some of those pejorative words!
Non sequitur. “Inflammatory” ≠ “baseless” or “unwarranted,” nor does it mean “something that cannot be said.” Your overreaction about “limiting honest and forthright discourse” is way over the top.
Jimmy hasn’t declared any subjects off limits, only called for some responsibility about throwing around inflammatory charges on hearsay evidence.
The charge “Mother Teresa prayed to Hindu idols” is indisputably inflammatory, regardless who say it or says so. (Note that Jimmy was not addressing the charge that Mother Teresa said troubling things about salvation and other religions. So unless MacArthur saw Mother Teresa praying to Hindu idols, his experience is irrelevant to the charge in question.)
Because it is inflammatory, it requires a higher standard of proof, for the same reason that hearsay is inadmissible in court. Look: If I told you my friend met Keith Green and Green said erroneous things about Catholicism, you might or might not consider that inflammatory. But if I told you my friend met Green and saw him praying the rosary, you would probably want to see that backed up a little more rigorously. Right?
You seem to have missed the point when you say things like “I will be monitoring your blog to see if anyone here ever shares a personal story or testimony of any kind that cannot be supported by anything except their word” and “When the personal testimony supports your views, you canonize it; when it opposes your views, you make up more rules to limit honest and forthright discourse.” When the “personal story or testimony” is inflammatory, then get back to Jimmy on that.
Also, good night: “Just like Trent.” “The duplicity of RCC teaching.” How snide can you be?
So, SDG, what should we call those united with Rome, if we don’t think they deserve the name “catholic”?
This question has already been dealt with extensively many times on this blog, perhaps most exhaustively HERE.
So, SDG, what should we call those united with Rome, if we don’t think they deserve the name “catholic”?
The term for them to be used on this blog is Catholic, without scare quotes.
This is a Catholic blog, and Catholics are to be called Catholics on it.
If you have a problem with that, go somewhere else to post. I will not have the discussions on this blog warped by rude circumlocutions.
I do not feel comfortable calling anyone united to Rome “Catholic”.
It would be, in my mind, like calling the Muslims “The True Faith” if they decided upon this as their official name, and felt all other names derogatory.
Then I will post elsewhere.
Thanks for the clarification.
For what it’s worth, I sympathize with Aristotle’s dilemma, and I respect his way of handling it.
I don’t think there ought to be any trouble with the term “Catholic,” Aristotle. Unless I am mistaken, you would want to call those who are of the proper faith “catholic,” with a small ‘c,’ whereas the name of the Church is “Catholic,” with a capital one. Call Catholics Catholic, while maintaining that they are not “catholic,” just as I call the Orthodox “Orthodox” while maintaining that they are not “orthodox.”
@Jimmy: You might want to put something in there about the opposite (people using pejoratives about other religions and Christian traditions. I haven’t yet seen any in my short time visiting your blog, but it helps to keep thing fair and charitable.
@Steve Camp: You’re not making sense. You’re the one being duplicitous. You expect us to, out of hand, take you for your word and your friend’s word with no other corroborating evidence. You expect us to NOT take the word of (just about everyone else) not to mention the rigorous hearings and investigations going on into her life including documented interviews (from both sides of her canonization) involving dozens of people, if not hundreds.
You’re also asking us to believe that she said something completely contrary and so fundamentally different about what every other source (including herself) has told us about her.
That’s quite a stretch, wouldn’t you agree?
Such outrageous allegations (hearsay) require equally compelling and concrete proof before they can even be taken seriously.
So before you start bashing the Church, maybe you should be prepared to no look like a fool.
I’d also add that if Aristotle comes to a point where he feels himself able to use this blog’s terminology then he is welcome to post in the future.
What do you call Jehovah’s Witnesses?
Would you insist on calling the Church of Christ denomination something other than its name?
Like I said in the linked post, “As a Catholic, I don’t mind speaking of ‘Orthodoxy,’ ‘the Orthodox’ or ‘the Orthodox Churches’; I don’t consider this in any way to diminish the Catholic Church’s claims of orthodoxy… I don’t mind speaking of ‘Evangelicals’… even though as a Catholic I consider myself an evangelical Christian.” Same goes for the Episcopalians (whom I believe have an invalid episcopacy) and the Presbyterians (whom I believe have no presbyters in the NT sense).
Therefore, “when I encounter Protestant Christians who insist on ‘RCC’ rather than ‘Catholic Church’… — sometimes with a flip aside such as ‘I’m Presbyterian Catholic myself,’ etc. — I can’t help reading that as reflecting their own insecurity in their identity.”
@Jimmy: You might want to put something in there about the opposite (people using pejoratives about other religions and Christian traditions. I haven’t yet seen any in my short time visiting your blog, but it helps to keep thing fair and charitable.
I agree, and I want to keep things fair and charitable. If this becomes a recurring problem (as the “Romanist” business has of late), I’ll craft a Rule to deal with it.
(I try not to craft rules in advance of most problems, both because I don’t want to make the blog’s legal system burdensome and because you can craft better law when you’re looking at a concrete case rather than trying to imagine problems in the abstract.)
It is beyond my comprehension why Steve Camp insists on defending slurs. If a discussant considers a word directed at him a slur–even though you don’t intend it be taken as such–good manners would seem to dictate that you should respect that request.
Granted, words like “heresy” and “apostasy” are strong, but they are terms of art in theological discourse. They have distinctive meanings. However, when they are used inappropriately as linguistic weapons rather than as they have been carefully used in church history, one is bearing false witness against one’s neighbor. For example, someone who denies Calvin’s view of justification is not a “heretic” or even an “apostate” in any historically defensible sense, unless one just means “not a Calvinist.” But in that case, most of the really smart and saintly Christians in history were heretics and apostates.
John MacArthur is a decent man. But he is given to uncharitable and inflammatory rhetoric that breeds and nurtures an unattractive Christianity. This is partly because MacArthur treats the Bible is an ahistorical systematic theology textbook. Remember that the very books of the New Testament that MacArthur rifles through to find proof texts was part and parcel of the early church’s liturgical celebrations, including penance, infant Baptism, and the Real Presence of the Eucharist. This is why, if St. Augustine were to arrive in the 21st century he would recognize Joseph Ratzinger and think MacArthur, his theology, and his church practices very strange.
Aw shazbot.
My favorite parts of the Fr Brown mysteries are when someone crinkles their nose and call him a “papist” to his face. Now I have to go somewhere else to feel all victimized.
I would like to point out that this is probably the first time in memory I have seen Jimmy post on a Saturday.
The charge “Mother Teresa prayed to Hindu idols” is indisputably inflammatory,
No it’s true.
Jimmy
You haven’t commented on the actual quotes from Mother Teresa herself where she is undoubtedly affirming universalism and something other than the biblical gospel. Even some of the Catholic people commenting on the other thread were admittingly concerned over her words.
Forget my true encounter if you will, or MacArthur’s true face to face encounter with her. Respond to her own errant words. That is not inflammatory nor conjecture, but fact.
Chad
Such outrageous allegations (hearsay) require equally compelling and concrete proof before they can even be taken seriously.
Again, did you read the several quotes I posted of Mother Teresa’s own words about these things or do you just like to react rather than deal with actual record? Her beliefs are identical and consistent to MacArthur’s face to face account with her and my friend’s as well. And remember, this man was a Catholic who admired her greatly until that encounter. That’s what made it so compelling.
Do the homework.
You’re. Not. Hearing. Me.
I said: Non sequitur. “Inflammatory” ≠ “baseless” or “unwarranted,” nor does it mean “something that cannot be said.”
“No it’s true” does not answer the charge that it is inflammatory. It’s a non sequitur.
You’re. Still. Not. Hearing. Me.
I said: Note that Jimmy was not addressing the charge that Mother Teresa said troubling things about salvation and other religions.
Jimmy’s post concerned the charge of praying to idols. You’re responding regarding the charge of errant teaching. Non sequitur again.
Steve Camp:
Perhaps it may help to clarify what “inflammatory” means. It means: “Likely to inflame passions.”
Claiming that Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols is going to inflame Catholic passions and you need to offer something more than hearsay to substantiate it (like Steve DG would if he wanted to claim that Keith Green prayed the Rosary–something that would inflame certain Evangelical passions).
A thing can be both inflammatory and true. But because of the emotion-stirring nature of such claims, extra evidence of their truth needs to be provided if the discourse is to be kept civil and not degenerate into an impassioned muddle.
Hence the rule is directed to the claim that you have not yet substantiated with anything but hearsay.
SDG:
I am hearing you… Forget my true story. Deal with her words biblically. Or that considered rude to ask any Catholic on this forum to hold the light of Scripture to her claims as we do to evangelical leaders as well? (Acts 17:9-11).
“Papistical”? That’s a new one to me! 🙂
But seriously, the rules sound fair to me, and in fact they basically sound like common sense.
Consider it stricken from the record (for lack of substantiation).
When has anyone suggested any difficulty about discussing her publicly reported words? I’ve already posted something on that subject in the relevant thread (which isn’t this one).
Jimmy:
That is a good and fair thought–thank you.
Now, what do you think about her own words–that illustrate and say exactly what my friend’s and MacArthur’s true encounter was? Give me a biblical analysis of her own words in light of the Bible. Compare those two things.
What say ye Jimmy? I know that you know the answer to her questions and it must be difficult.
Guard the Trust,
Steve
Matthew 16:24-26
“Papistical”? That’s a new one to me! 🙂
Understood, though it googles.
(Note the intransitive use of the verb “to google.”)
I wonder if the same courtesy will be applied to Protestants, like not referring to the Reformation as the Deformation, etc.
Perhaps Jimmy’s post of August 25, 2007, 8:05:46PM might interest you.
Bill, is such a rule in the reverse even possible? Especially considering that B16 has referred to Protestant churches as “defective” and “deformed”
“I wonder if the same courtesy will be applied to Protestants, like not referring to the Reformation as the Deformation, etc.”
Good point, Jeremiah. I have used that term, myself, and though it does sum up my thoughts on the matter, it is not a helpful or friendly word to use.
What has happened, at least in my case, is that someone would enter the combox breathing Protestant fire, insulting the Pope, making wild accusations of idolatry, etc… and, being human, I get my back up and do something dumb like hit back.
It’s a natural response, but not especially Christian.
I’ve learned a bit at a time to remain calm and not get personal, with the result that I now make fewer posts that I later regret. In that sense, I think the Combox Wars have helped me learn a little charity.
Incidentally, the heated rhetoric has not at all been confined to Protestants. Some of my most sharply worded comments have been directed to certain theological liberals who insist on remaining Catholic, though their beliefs long ago ceased to resemble anything like Catholicism.
If they weren’t trying to undermine the faith of others I wouldn’t get so hot under the collar, but that seems to be their goal. It’s not enough that they have no faith, they don’t want anyone else to, either.
But, anyway… noted. Perjorative terms are not good form. “Romish”, “Romanist” and “Popish” and similar terms are perjorative.
Give me a biblical analysis of her own words in light of the Bible. Compare those two things.
Steve Camp:
I’m pressed for time this weekend, and I don’t have time to go into the whole “I’m a Catholic, so for me ‘biblical’ means ‘in line with the teaching of the Bible,’ not ‘from the Bible alone'” issue in detail, but SEE HERE.
Jeremiah –
Regarding B16’s use of the terms “defective” and “deformed”;
He is – I think clearly – not speaking perjoratively, but is addressing, under the Catholic view of the Church, the problems associated with ecclesial communions that have broken away.
He is not throwing rhetorical bombs, he used those terms as part of a careful analysis, not a rant.
(repeated from the other thread)
Jimmy
Thank you for your answers (on the other thread) and I will look forward to more in the future with you. BUT, I would still like to have you address these statements within the context of God’s Word rather than opinion.
Two examples:
1. As Luke records in Acts: “Acts 4:10 let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead—by this name this man stands here before you in good health. Acts 4:11 “He is the STONE WHICH WAS REJECTED by you, THE BUILDERS, but WHICH BECAME THE CHIEF CORNER stone. Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (NASB)
1.a. This Scripture clearly refutes MT’s claim that “If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life — his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation.”
2. Also, the Apostle John states clearly, “1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.”
2.a. This would clearly refute MT’s claim that “All is God — Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God.”
One further question to ponder: the issue here goes to salvation, not to canonization. Do you think that Scripture teaches that one who holds to such views specious errant doctrine is consistent with the profession and confession of a truly regenerated believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? Would not those unsound doctrines constitute “another gospel” – which is no gospel at all? AND worthy of anathema? (Gal. 1:6-9).
Grace and peace,
Steve
2 Tim. 3:1-5
… Last time I checked, being a pagan or other thing didn’t keep you from accessing God, you were just doing it wrong.
God will still hear you, and still loves you. He’s God.
Being God, I can’t see him sending everyone before Jesus to Hell, nor can I see him doing so to the many folks who never got to hear His name. That’s the basis of the Catholic idea of invincible ignorance. Because he’s God, he knows if you rejected him, or accepted him.
I thought Louis Carrol did a really good job on that….
Oh, BTW– good rule, Jimmy.
*Sigh* How many times to I have to say it? As previously noted, the issue of courtesy here applies to the proper names of communions, such as “the United Church of Christ” or “the Episcopal Church in the United States of America.”
Catholics certainly call the Episcopal Church by its name, despite the fact that in our belief neither “episcopal” nor “church” applies theologically. We would not always insist on using circumlocutions such as “the Anglican communion in the US,” much less “the pseudo-Episcopal Ecclesial Communion.” Its name is the Episcopal Church, and we don’t mind using it. To do so in no way compromises our ability to attest to what we believe about both them and ourselves.
B16 might quite rightly describe Protestant ecclesial communions as “defective” and “deformed” according to Catholic belief, but this has nothing to do with refusing to give a particular communion its chosen name. If he had occasion to refer to a particular communion, I expect he would use its chosen name.
Although “the Reformation” is not the name of a particular ecclesial communion and thus not subject to precisely the same rule of courtesy, in practice not many Catholics would flat-out refuse to use the term, even though some might express their POV in a provocative fashion by sometimes using a term like “the Deformation” or “the Protestant rebellion” (though not usually to the exclusion of “the Reformation”). The principle here is less courtesy than clarity and accepted terminology (which of course also applies to proper names such as the Catholic Church). In the same way, we would refer to “the Enlightenment,” say, even if we didn’t think the overall thrust of that movement was particularly enlightening.
Bottom line: We call ourselves the Catholic Church, and have done for going on 2000 years. Please call us by our name. Thank you.
I was raised in a convent run by the Sisters of St. Brigid and remember being told repeatedly by the nuns that we were to refer to ourselves as “Roman Catholics” – not just as Catholics. In fact it was drummed into us that the name of our church was “One, Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.”
Of course this was many years ago, and in the remote outpost of Australia, but could someone enlighten me as to why the use of this “name” is now frowned upon.
I’m not offended by any name that someone may call Protestants or evangelicals. Deformation: not an issue; defected or deformed–B16 is not a threat and truly reveals invincible ignorance.
Truth is not easily offended; error doesn’t want to be challenged. Truth will stay focused on the issues; error will pride itself in the rabbit trails exhibited here.
So you know, reformed apologists and evangelists like myself, refer to Catholics as Romanists is because a true Catholic will not only appeal to tradition, but to the Word of God; Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes. THAT is the difference. I say this in no derogatory fashion, but are you Catholics or Romanists; do you know the Word of God, or simply rely on the man-made authority of the Magistarium and Pope?
That is a legitimate question for I still cannot get anybody on this site to defend, debate, discuss, through the lens of the Word of God… Read the threads—not one of you can make an argument biblically—and have not. I would think that would concern the Catholics who read this blog.
Grace and peace,
Steve
Psalm 119
Jimmy: what about “popery?”
Steve: A Catholic will *only* refer to the Pope & Magisterium? I’m afraid you are wrong, my friend. I’m sure you’re familiar with the published works and debates of Scott Hahn, Pat Madrid, and Jimmy, as well. It’s a Bible love-fest. I love and cherish my Bible, and it is the Sacred Scriptures which brought me into the Catholic Church.
As mentioned on the other thread, it is a *given* that we all agree that false gods are not to be worshipped, and that it is through Christ alone that we are saved. Why argue that from the Bible? We all agree that the Bible says it and that it is true.
“Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
Umm… no. Of course Catholics appeal to the Word of God. The WHOLE word of God, as in sacred scripture AND sacred Tradition AND the magisterium of the Church. There never is one without the others. It is thanks to Tradition and the Magisterium that you have your Bible.
Your insistance on the truncated and artificial doctrine of Sola Scriptura does not in the least force Catholics to ignore the other two branches of the river. When you ask for explanations from a Catholic, you are – not surprsingly at all – likely get Scripture, Tradition and Magisterial teaching all together in the mix. To act surprised about that seems more than a bit disingenuous. To act as if you have caught us Catholics up short (“A-ha! You admit that your answer relies on sources other than the Bible!”) is simply bizarre. You have been at this for some time (apparently), it should come as no great shock to you that Catholics think and talk like Catholics.
Or maybe we should drop in on your site and trumpet “A-HA! So, you admit that your views depend on your own private interpretation of Scripture!”.
To address Mother Teresa’s words, I subscribe almost exactly to the views that SDG has given previously. I do find some of her words troubling. She was primarily neither a theologian nor a teacher, but a minister to the poor and sick.
I am not concerned in the least about her status as an official Saint… my faith does not stand or fall on such things. I am comforted to know that there is an infallible authority looking into the matter, and they can judge much better than I what MT’s comments mean in their various contexts.
There is the possibility that she went “native”, a bit, and that this colored her thinking. There is also the possibilty that she simply did not express herself well on these matters. She may have just ignorantly held some ideas that were not in line with true Church doctrine.
You are aware that the Church teaches that there are those who may be saved who have never had the chance to hear about Jesus? The unborn, for example?
Are you also aware that, in their ignorance, pagan peoples have worshipped the True God as best they understood Him? The Apostle Paul affirmed as much;
“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you…” (“Acts 17:23).
Do you take exception to this Biblical point of view?
STUBBLE SPARK: === Aw shazbot. My favorite parts of the Fr Brown mysteries are when someone crinkles their nose and call him a “papist” to his face. Now I have to go somewhere else to feel all victimized. ===
Do not despair oh Sparkling Stubble! There remain yet a multitude of blogs on the internet on which we may be known by any manner of unpleasant — even scurrilous — names. (wink)
Let me add to the 2-noo-roolz: I dislike my Church being referred to as RCC or as Rome. It makes my skin crawl as much as hearing any of the other putdowns listed in the OP.
I do not call the Anglican churches ac’s, or the Presbyterian churches pc’s, or the Russian Orthodox RO’s. Nor do I call John Haggee JH, James White JW, C Michael Patton CMP, or Jack Chick JC.
I consider these abbreviations to be no more than endruns around courtesy — just another boring way of minimalizing and marginalizing the faiths being discussed — or flamed as the case may be.
Reference and reason is quite enough. Imaginative, decorative, but empty rhetoric does much to confuse the issues, little to build common understanding, and nothing to lend credibility to the person descending to such levels.
So why go there? Hint: the flamer has nothing substantive to contribute maybe? Nothing but a yearning burning churning irresistable need for negative attention?
TIM J: === Perjorative terms are not good form. ===
A friend of mine on CAF has a stock answer for those who descend to the level of perjorative.
He generally says something along the lines of “Normally when folks descend to the level of ad hominem, namecalling, or other forms personal attack, it is a reliable indicator that they have exhausted their supply of substantive commentary — in which case, they have conceded the point in question.”
A series of indignant protests normally follow, each of which is met with “I thought you had conceded this point, so why are continuing as if it were still in question?”
I like it so I grabbed it and added it to my toolbox. I find it saves pages of flaming.
It should be noted, of course, that pagan peoples have also worshipped a bunch of false gods, as attested in scripture… things that were an abomination before God, so certainly (as some have already pointed out) invincible ignorance saves no one. But, again, Paul has some interesting things to say;
“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.). This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.”. Romans 2:12-16
It is quite likely that you were Roman Catholic, just as I am Roman Catholic. There is nothing wrong with the term “Roman Catholic Church” when properly used to refer to the Latin Church of the Catholic communion, in contradistinction to the 21 other particular Churches of the Catholic communion, including the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian and Chaldean Catholic Churches.
All of these are fully Catholic and in communion with the successor to St. Peter, but they are not Latin or Roman and thus are not Roman Catholic. When referring to the entire communion of all Catholic Churches in communion with the bishop of Rome, the correct term is “Catholic Church,” not “Roman Catholic Church,” which devalues and mislabels the non-Latin Catholic Churches.
“Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
In which case you owe us an apology for calling us Romanists. Given that we have quoted Scripture to you.
It should be noted, of course, that pagan peoples have also worshipped a bunch of false gods, as attested in scripture… things that were an abomination before God, so certainly (as some have already pointed out) invincible ignorance saves no one.
The question is whether people are invincibly ignorant of God:
“The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened.”
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
(To cite only a few examples from one thread with which Steve Camp ought to be familiar, to say nothing of the countless others he might have perused.
Hey I as a militant Catholic have no problem refering to the Eastern Orthodox as “The Orthodox” (BTW those are not intended as scare quotes) even thought I don’t believe their theology is orthodox. So Steve what is your malfuction?
The problem here is Steve Camp is a Protestant who believes in the teachings of Retrictivism(Jeb Protestant I note seems to be of the same belief).
Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as “Invincible Ignorance” & thus all non-Christians below the age of reason are without exception damned.
Some Evangelical Protestant scholars believe that God judges all people based on their response to the Holy Spirit, and that just as Romans 2:14-15 shows that God is righteous by condemning people who violate natural law as they understand it, it also shows His mercy in forgiving those who have lived up to all the light they have had. Thus, it is possible for people to be saved through Christ, even if they have not been instructed by Christian missionaries.
Supporters of inclusivism include John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, John E. Sanders, Terrance L. Tiessen (Reformed) and Robert Brush (contributor to the Arminian Magazine). Billy Graham agrees with what many call inclusivism, but he does not like to refer to it by the term, because he is concerned that many people mean universalism when they say inclusivism.
Restrictivist vs. Inclusivist was an open question in Catholicism but over the last 300 years starting with Pope Alexander VIII the Holy Spirit has lead the Church in the direction of Inclusivism.
John MacArthur is a hardcore Restrictivist. It’s little wonder his partisans are as well.
“Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
For the final interpretation of the Bible yes since as taught by the Bible God set up the Papacy & the Episcopate & made them the final interpreters who would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But Protestants OTOH appeal ONLY to themselves & their own flesh & what they subjectively think the Holy Spirit is leading them to interpret scripture. Plus this whole process is fallible. So you have Protestants like Camp pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church. That is too comical to be taken seriously.
The problem here is Steve Camp is a Protestant who believes in the teachings of Retrictivism(Jeb Protestant I note seems to be of the same belief).
Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as “Invincible Ignorance” & thus all non-Christians below the age of reason are without exception damned.
Some Evangelical Protestant scholars believe that God judges all people based on their response to the Holy Spirit, and that just as Romans 2:14-15 shows that God is righteous by condemning people who violate natural law as they understand it, it also shows His mercy in forgiving those who have lived up to all the light they have had. Thus, it is possible for people to be saved through Christ, even if they have not been instructed by Christian missionaries.
Supporters of inclusivism include John Wesley, C. S. Lewis, Clark Pinnock, John E. Sanders, Terrance L. Tiessen (Reformed) and Robert Brush (contributor to the Arminian Magazine). Billy Graham agrees with what many call inclusivism, but he does not like to refer to it by the term, because he is concerned that many people mean universalism when they say inclusivism.
Restrictivist vs. Inclusivist was an open question in Catholicism but over the last 300 years starting with Pope Alexander VIII the Holy Spirit has lead the Church in the direction of Inclusivism.
John MacArthur is a hardcore Restrictivist. It’s little wonder his partisans are as well.
“Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
For the final interpretation of the Bible yes since as taught by the Bible God set up the Papacy & the Episcopate & made them the final interpreters who would be guided by the Holy Spirit.
But Protestants OTOH appeal ONLY to themselves & their own flesh & what they subjectively think the Holy Spirit is leading them to interpret scripture. Plus this whole process is fallible. So you have Protestants like Camp pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church. That is too comical to be taken seriously.
Sorry for the double post. My computer is wack!
Sorry for the double post. My computer is wack!
Steve Camp: So If I come to your home and say about your deceased Grandmother–“My friend said he knew her well –and said she was cheating on her husband every time he left town!” –and then when you kindly stop making such claims in your house — and that I have no proof” —so when he says then “My other friend said the same thing about her–are you calling them liars!?”
Are you going to accept this as proof or even as a logical answer?
edit:
Steve Camp: So If I come to your home and say about your deceased Grandmother–“My friend said he knew her well –and said she was cheating on her husband every time he left town!” –and then when you kindly ask me to stop making such claims in your house — and that I have no proof” —so when he says then “My other friend said the same thing about her–are you calling them liars!?”
Are you going to accept this as proof or even as a logical answer?
Second edit –I need coffee—-
Steve Camp: So if I come to your home and say about your deceased Grandmother–“My friend said he knew her well –and said she was cheating on her husband every time he left town!” –and then when you kindly ask me to stop making such claims in your house — and that I have no proof” —so when I say then “My other friend said the same thing about her–are you calling them liars!?”
Are you going to accept this as proof or even as a logical answer?
“Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
Steve,
I haven’t meet a Catholic who appeals only to the the Magistarium and Popes. I haven’t meet a Catholic who doesn’t believe the Bible is the Word of God. I havent meet a Catholic who doesn’t appeal to the Bible and believe in the Bible. I haven’t seen a Catholic on jimmyakin.org who haven’t reinforced their arguements to some extent, whehter you agree with the arguments or not, with passages from the Bible.
If a Muslim asks a Catholic why they believe Jesus is God, they will probably talk about the the divine inspiration of the Bible, and passages relating to the deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the purpose of the resurection and atonement, original sin, oldtestament prophecies, etc, in other words they will appeal to the Bible. Steve, you have a very jack chickish understanding of Catholicism, which says that Catholics would tell that Muslim “because the pope tells me so.”
We need to mail Steve Camp a copy of “The Essential Catholic Survival Guide” by Catholic Answers. I just gave mine to a friend and purchased a new one for myself. Great stuff… because it’s all TRUE!
NaturalCatholicMama:
You said, “Steve: A Catholic will *only* refer to the Pope & Magisterium?”
I didn’t say that… read more carefully. BTW, love the name.
Steve
BenY…
You said, “So you have Protestants like Camp pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church. That is too comical to be taken seriously.”
That IS very comical because I never said that. I am only asking can anyone here on this thread make a biblical argument either supporting what MT has said in the quotes I listed, OR, refuting what she has said in the quotes I listed? That’s all…
Contrary to what SDG linked, that has not happened yet…
The pillar and support of the truth,
Steve
2 Tim. 2:15
Steve. Your claim was that “Romanists [sic] appeal only to the Magistarium [sic] and Popes,” not to scripture. This is a lie. It is bearing false witness, as the links I provided amply demonstrate.
There are about a thousand Catholic books within an arm’s length of where I sit writing that I could use to prove you wrong simply by flipping to a random page and producing appeals to scripture.
Here, I will actually do it. I have just chosen a book virtually at random from my shelf. It happens to be The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John A. Hardon.
I flipped open to a page at random. It is page 266. Here are the very first words my eye happened to fall on:
So there it is: a “Romanist” appealing to scripture, not just to the magisterium and the popes. I could repeat this experiment a dozen times, a hundred times, and every experiment would refute your lie that we “appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
And hang it all, you already knew it was wrong, because Inocencio, Esau, Jordan Potter, Tim J, John Henry, I and others have all been “appealing to scripture” in our interactions with you ever since you began slagging “Romanism” on Jimmy’s blog.
The question is not whether your statement that “Romanists [sic] appeal only to the Magistarium [sic] and Popes” is right or wrong. You are wrong. Period. In your zeal to demonstrate the supposed errors of Romanism, you have fallen into error yourself. You aren’t the first, and won’t be the last.
The only question remaining is whether you can muster the humility to admit and repent of your error. You have ragged on Jimmy’s readers for their faults, but one thing Jimmy’s readers have shown themselves able to do is admit mistakes and apologize. Now we’ll get to see whether you can do the same.
If it turns out you can admit your error, then maybe we can try to answer the knotty question of why a discussion about why a discussion about what Mother Teresa has or hasn’t said, and what it did or didn’t mean, should involve quoting Bible verses that we all essentially agree about. Otherwise, I don’t see the point.
point of clarification
If you missed SDG’s links above, they are all taken from a previous post some days ago (Beckwith Chronicles).
So to be clear, I am speaking about this thread and the one previous where I posted quotes from Mother Teresa only.
Respectfully,
Steve
2 Thess. 3:1-5
So when are Da Rulz going to be enforced? Steve has had the gall to violate them on this very topic.
Steve C: Here, again, is what you said:
Now you add:
Are we then to understand that your original statement was meant in reference only to the subject of Mother Teresa? So that what you really meant was, um, something like this?
Because, um, you cannot really be saying that you call us Romanists because we appeal only to the magisterium and Popes when talking about Mother Teresa. That doesn’t even begin to make crazy sense.
So which is it? What did you mean by “reformed apologists and evangelists like myself refer to Catholics as Romanists [because] Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes”? What did you mean by “Romanists appeal only to the magisterium and Popes”? Please, explain.
SDG:
You said, “Are we then to understand that your original statement was meant in reference only to the subject of Mother Teresa?”
1. Yes. That is what we are talking about here is it not? Do you have any Scripture that supports or refutes what MT said in the quotes I posted? This isn’t real hard to understand…
2. I said, “Romanists may appeal…” not that they did. The previous sentence gives the context to that… Are you not using all of your brain again? :-).
JohnD.
I haven’t violated the rules. I haven’t used any of the terms that Jimmy has prohibited here in a pejorative manner. I have used one term, as SDG has, in a clarifying manner. And I have referred to those here as Catholics; which I have no problem in doing out of respect for the blog host here.
Now, are you able to make a biblical defense or analysis of what Mother Teresa has said or not? That is my very simple question.
Still waiting…
Steve
Col. 1:9-14
Even with my whole brain, Steve, I admit you have stumped me completely as to what you claim you were saying, or thought you were saying, with this sentence.
It seems clear to me that this can only mean something that is not only a lie, but a silly lie, demonstrably a lie, even known by you to be a lie.
It cannot possibly be limited in scope only to the subject of Mother Teresa (you can’t really be saying that the subject of Mother Teresa is the culprit as to why we get called “Romanists”).
AFAICT, this must mean that there is some larger sense in which we supposedly “appeal only to the magisterium and Popes,” not to the word of God. Which gets back to the whole lie thing.
Steve,
//So you know, reformed apologists and evangelists like myself, refer to Catholics as Romanists//
This does not qualify as “quoting someone else’s use of them for purposes of critique”
Steve,
And the use of RCC in your very first comment.
I don’t think that meant “Really Catholic Church”.
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words. We do this in the Protestant/Reformed camp continually and it helps us to be true to God’s Word and subject to its teachings.
I will respectively leave you as this point.
Maybe someday one of you here will take the time to demonstrate to me Scripturally what MT said is orthodox.
I do appreciate Jimmy at least making some effort in this regard–though not from the pages of God’s Word.
Until then, I remain
Yours for the Master’s use,
Steve
2 Tim. 2:15
So. Evidently Steve Camp can’t or won’t explain what he meant by saying
It’s a sad day for Protestant lurkers on Jimmy’s blog hoping to see Steve do them proud. A “licensed minister of the gospel and have been approved to teach, preach, and proclaim the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ” has evidently been caught in a blatant and silly lie, and refuses to admit it or repent. And so he takes his leave of us, complaining that we want to resolve what he meant first before critiquing what Mother Teresa meant.
Perhaps after a good night’s sleep Steve may rethink it and come back and come clean. I hope so.
So. Jeb Protestant, Aristotle, anyone else. Any thoughts?
Good grief. For one, holy, catholic and apostolic church we do seem to be very divisive, beligerent, and confused!
Direct quote from Steve Camp (see post of Aug 26, 2007 8:43:26 AM): “Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes.”
Direct quote from Steve Camp (see post of Aug 26, 2007 1:56:00 PM ) “2. I said, “Romanists may appeal…” not that they did.”
From what I (and all others in this combox can read for themselves), the word “may” is NOT in the first quote. It’s just not there.
And then he says, “I will respectively leave you as this point,” when confronted with this? I would ask that he at least come back to show how I might have misconstrued his posts above, and how he can make his two comments jibe. Otherwise, I think the only conclusion that is logical is the one SDG has just proposed.
You’re right, Heidi. In fact, when I said that it was a sad day for Protestant lurkers, I should have added that it’s a sad day for Catholics too, including me.
Steve Camp is my brother in Christ. My brother in Christ has falsely maligned Christians of my communion and won’t recant. I will always be grateful for the role Steve’s music played in my life long ago. I will always regret the divide that exists between us today, and lament the faults on both sides, Catholic and Protestant, that led to and perpetuate such divides between brothers.
Jimmy,
When I made the move to the Roman Catholic Church, some called me a papist. I took some real comfort in that. I suspect that the Society of Jesus also took some comfort in being called Jesuits. Perhaps Papist is not such a bad thing at all.
Cordially,
dt
I’ve actually wondered about this question I’m going to propose for quite a while now, even before (but particularly since) Steve Camp has joined these threads (esp. since the Beckwith Chronicles). How should Catholics respond to someone whom we would ordinarily (if he didn’t come with Evangelical creds) label a troll?
As a lifelong Catholic, I was not previously familiar with Mr. Camp or his music. From what I’ve seen of his postings here, it seems that he really doesn’t want to learn about the Church and her teachings or why Catholics believe what we do, but rather seeks to prove the errors of “Romanism.” And yet, even after multiple examples of this, we continue to engage, and continue to get frustrated. When do we say, as SDG has said, that yes, we are deeply saddened (as I truly am) that many people, even our separated brethren, harbor anti-Catholic prejudice, but that we’ve reached the point at which further “dialogue” is futile? To all of you who have had much more extensive experience than I in apologetics, when do you say, “God bless you, I’ll pray for you” but no longer get involved in trying to get the other party to move beyond the prejudice?
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
Dave Armstrong has wrestled with this very issue. See: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/03/interacting-with-sophists-reflections.html
It has become blatantly obvious that no one is here willing to simply open up a Bible and offer biblical support or critique of Mother Teresa’s words.
Steve,
What’s the issue? You already showed a biblical critique of Mother Teresa’s words. I agree with you. Her quotes sound like heresy to my ears, I don’t have a problem admitting that. What do you want me to do? Requote what you already posted from Scripture?
The Catholic allegiance is not to Mother Teresa…it is to the truth and ultimately Christ.
If I’m interpreting you correctly, Steve, you are demanding chapter-and-verse cites for something everyone has professed agreement with–Jesus is the only way of salvation, idol worship is a sin, etc. Since you already know we all agree on the matter, this demand is primarily to prove to you that Catholics are familiar with the Bible, and can appeal to it instead of to reason, the Magisterium, or the Pope. You call Catholics who can’t/don’t appeal to Scripture “Romanists.” Am I interpreting correctly so far?
I don’t find pejorative terms acceptable at all, but it seems especially “off” that you choose to preemptively use the pejorative term,just in case it applies to some among the large and varied group you’re addressing, and then force people to jump through hoops for you before you’ll grant them the respect of not calling them names.
Name-calling is a sin against charity, which the Bible says is the greatest of the virtues. Assuming the worst of people, whether the assumption is just in general or until they’ve proven to your satisfaction that they’re worthy of any respect, is an even bigger sin against charity, I would imagine, as it’s a disposition of the soul and mind rather than just something you say every once in a while. I don’t recall cynicism and rudeness being listed among the fruits of the Spirit.
My father abandoned our family, and we haven’t seen him in years. It wouldn’t be a stretch for that to cause a young woman to despise or have a low opinion of all men. Would it therefore be okay for me to go around calling men worthless, child-abandoning scumbags, or even to merely think to myself that they likely are, unless and until they prove they’re different? That’s no different than using a pejorative term for all Catholics right from the get-go, merely because your experience indicates that some don’t know/cite Scripture instead of or alongside the teachings of the Church.
Jesus commanded us to be perfect as He is perfect. As Christians, we should all strive to exhibit as much kindness and charity as we’re capable of at all times, not the bare minimum. Doling it out only whenever you find the recipient “worthy”, is not acceptable. Nor is it effective, if what you’re shooting for is converting others to your point of view. The Bible warns us to judge things by their fruits, and you’re not comporting yourself with loving concern, or indeed anything other than pride (i.e. you are the judge of who should be called Catholic and who should be called Romanist) and uncharitableness.
I love it when we are able to convey to non-Catholics what we believe and why, but that entails a certain receptivity on the part of the questioner. What if the questioner lacks that good faith?
Please note that this question has two aspects: when you are privately talking to the individual, and when you are publically talking. Debates and, well, this forum, you have also to consider whether the lurkers are reading in good faith. Even more so here than in debates, where lurkers can come along at any time, and we don’t want them to think the troll unanswered because unanswerable.
Considering that “the Bible” is a product of the Catholic magisterium, Steve seems to be as tainted in his sources as those he is maligning.
I hope the above statement wasn’t seen as inflammatory. Inflammatory would be telling Steve that 80’s Elton John and Chairman Mao called and want their hair and shirt back.
>That IS very comical because I never said that. I am only asking can anyone here on this thread make a biblical argument either supporting what MT has said in the quotes I listed, OR, refuting what she has said in the quotes I listed? That’s all…
Steve Camp clearly your reading comprehention skills DO NOT equal your great musical talent. (Which of course has a direct bearing on your ability to read & interpret Scriptures for us Catholics over and against the Pope’s interpretation but I digress…)
Please read carefully. I LITERALLY said QUOTE “So you have PROTESTANTS LIKE CAMP pleading with us Catholics to reject Our alleigly fallible Church for THEIR admitedly fallible Church etc…” I never said YOU said anything other than “Romanists appeal only to the Magistarium and Popes” which of course makes about as much sense as saying “Protestants appeal only to Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Westminster or Augsberg Confessions, the notes in the Schofield Reference Bible etc…fill in the the blank)”.
You need to follow the Teachings of the Apostle James & be quick to listen (in this case read) & slow to speak (i.e post). So far you have not been doing that & for the sake of the honor of your own religous tradition that needs to change. So do it. God Bless.
I appreciate your effort to try to wring some sense out of Steve Camp’s helter-skelter polemics, but this won’t do.
For one thing, are we to conclude that the “Romanist friend” of Steve’s who was so troubled by his meeting with Mother Teresa relied solely on the Magisterium and popes and would never appeal to scripture? Or what about Steve’s previous history of calling all Catholics without exception “Romanists” and defending this usage?
For another thing, Steve specifically purports to be explaining the common usage of “Romanists” among “reformed apologists and evangelists” like himself: It is because of this dependency on the Magisterium and popes to the exclusion of scripture, Steve says, that (some?) Catholics are called “Romanists.”
The problem is there is simply no such common usage; despite what Steve may or may not now be claiming, “reformed apologists and evangelists” do not commonly use “Romanists” to mean “those Catholic Christians who rely solely on the Magisterium and popes and would never appeal to scripture.” “Romanist/ism” is quite simply pejorative language for “Catholic/ism”, as nearly any dictionary will corroborate.
Even if this is what Steve now claims he means by the term, it’s a completely revisionist usage introduced to justify ongoing use of the term in spite of its objectionability. Indeed, if you’ve interpreted him correctly, Steve now acknowledges that the term is pejorative, but claims that he only means it in regard to those Catholics who actually deserve the pejorative connotations, who rely solely on the Magisterium and popes, but never appeal to scripture the way “good” Catholics do.
This whole revisionist distinction between “Catholics” and “Romanists” reminds me ever so slightly, yet distinctly, of the despicable effort among some white racists to distinguish between “blacks” and “n–––––s,” and to justify use of “the n-word” while claiming not thereby to impugn all blacks — just (they say) the bad ones who actually embody the prejudicial connotations the word carries.
COMMENT BY UNAPOLOGETIC BANNED PERSON DELETED.
KEEP IT UP AND MATTERS WILL BE ESCALATED.
James White recently wrote that the term “Romanism” is the proper identification of the Catholics Church. Not just Catholics who rely solely on the Magisterium and popes, but he refers to all Catholics as romanists.
I accidentally posted this anonymously a few comments back, so I’m reposting the content of my comment with my name on it this time. 🙂
If I’m interpreting you correctly, Steve, you are demanding chapter-and-verse cites for something everyone has professed agreement with–Jesus is the only way of salvation, idol worship is a sin, etc. Since you already know we all agree on the matter, this demand is primarily to prove to you that Catholics are familiar with the Bible, and can appeal to it instead of to reason, the Magisterium, or the Pope. You call Catholics who can’t/don’t appeal to Scripture “Romanists.” Am I interpreting correctly so far?
I don’t find pejorative terms acceptable at all, but it seems especially “off” that you choose to preemptively use the pejorative term,just in case it applies to some among the large and varied group you’re addressing, and then force people to jump through hoops for you before you’ll grant them the respect of not calling them names.
Name-calling is a sin against charity, which the Bible says is the greatest of the virtues. Assuming the worst of people, whether the assumption is just in general or until they’ve proven to your satisfaction that they’re worthy of any respect, is an even bigger sin against charity, I would imagine, as it’s a disposition of the soul and mind rather than just something you say every once in a while. I don’t recall cynicism and rudeness being listed among the fruits of the Spirit.
My father abandoned our family, and we haven’t seen him in years. It wouldn’t be a stretch for that to cause a young woman to despise or have a low opinion of all men. Would it therefore be okay for me to go around calling men worthless, child-abandoning scumbags, or even to merely think to myself that they likely are, unless and until they prove they’re different? That’s no different than using a pejorative term for all Catholics right from the get-go, merely because your experience indicates that some don’t know/cite Scripture instead of or alongside the teachings of the Church.
Jesus commanded us to be perfect as He is perfect. As Christians, we should all strive to exhibit as much kindness and charity as we’re capable of at all times, not the bare minimum. Doling it out only whenever you find the recipient “worthy”, is not acceptable. Nor is it effective, if what you’re shooting for is converting others to your point of view. The Bible warns us to judge things by their fruits, and you’re not comporting yourself with loving concern, or indeed anything other than pride (i.e. you are the judge of who should be called Catholic and who should be called Romanist) and uncharitableness.
I’m pretty new to all this blogging stuff, and by the time I figured out that one post lead to another, I was on the other one. LOL I am not real swoft with this!
Anyway, I read what kayz just posted also on that Dr. James White home page, I read and re-read both blogs on this, the one that first started about Blessed Mother Teresa and then this one that Jimmy led us to with his rulz change. Eventually I may or may not get the hang of all of this but I do want to say that Blessed Mother Teresa is being slandered and taken out of context by this Steve guy and Jimmy is not being talked about too nicely by that Dr. James White on his site.
EWTN has some information about Blessed Mother Teresa on their site:
http://www.ewtn.com/motherteresa/
God help us all!
Being impolite only feeds personal pride. It is not the Christian way. Watch the following video to see who uses insults to when called to “defend” their faith:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvjzDgMmELY
Of course, James White is anti-Catholic, and is using an anti-Catholic term in its established sense. I guarantee you Steve’s friend John MacArthur has always used “Romanism” the same way.
Heck, Steve Camp has always used “Romanism” that same way, at least until today, when he (perhaps) suddenly decided to use it in a completely different way.
Vishnu
“Considering that “the Bible” is a product of the Catholic magisterium…”
Does your term “Catholic magisterium” apply to the Latin church only or to all the churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome?
The magisterium is the teaching authority of the universal Catholic Church, and does not pertain specially to any particular Church such as the Latin Church. It comprises the bishop of Rome and all bishops of all particular Churches in communion with him. The magisterium is established by Jesus Christ, and belongs to the whole Catholic communion. (There is thus no such thing as a “Roman Catholic magisterium.”)
This is probably off topic and most likely irrelevant. As an “outsider” to both groups I think I see the value of both groups. I admire the Catholic view that suffering can have a redemptive value. Having seen so much of it in my line of work I find that comforting, granted that is an emotional response and thus has no value what so ever. As for Mother T she never claimed to be anything else but an Albanian Nun who picked up suffering souls from the streets of her city Calcutta. Now there are “Protestant” groups that do the same thing and I think that is a point of “unity”. Granted that to is an emotional response and basically worthless. From the “Protestant” side of the “fence” I see a deep attachment to the Bible and a dedication to follow it, of course that goes with Catholic folks as well.
As for praying to “statues” if She picked up the sick and helped them, personally I would not care, her actions speak far louder. I have asked this before and many of us would like to know, what is the Gospel, how can we know God, many of us would like to? Please feel free to delete if it does not fit the discussion.
Howdy– Just two comments, one serious and one less-than-serious.
First, even assuming “universal usage” (which I do not, by the way) this still does not make the term any less offensive. I seem to remember the term “nigger” having a quite universal usage throughout the US, and it was no less offensive for its “universal use” then than it is now.
Second, when I attend my neighbor’s protestant bible study, I should no longer announce “The papist is here!” ?
Actually, Celeste, I think a case could be made that the n-word IS more offensive today than it was in past centuries; according to Wikipedia, the pejorative connotations began to develop in the 1800s.
This, however, would be in contrast to “Romanist,” which AFAIK has always been pejorative and characteristic of anti-Catholic prejudice, and was never a neutral and acceptable term.
Heh. The larger question is, should you be attending your neighbor’s Protestant bible study? Prescinding from that question, I think that a case can be made that “Romanist” may admit a reasonable ironic usage under the “I can say it, I am one” license, e.g., Scott Hahn’s “‘Romanism’ in Romans” tape series. (Some claim a similar license for use of the n-word by blacks, though I’m very dubious about that.)
Jimmy
Your second new rule:
24. It constitutes rudeness to make inflammatory assertions that one is not prepared to back up by anything more than hearsay (e.g., “Mother Theresa prayed to Hindu idols. I know because my friend said so.”).
While I agree about inflamatory statements with a source such as “my friend says so”, but if there are pictures, books, etc-which may not be Vatican website approved, possibly from a non Catholic (Protestant) or traditional source, that is as good of a source as any in my opinion. Do you expect the church to come clean about Mother Teresa praying to Hindu idols? Have they yet come clean about the abuse scandal where just today a well known Australian Bishop lashed out in disgust over the lack of leadership?
I think your intentions as always are good, but you are basically limiting resources to Catholic Answers and whatever so called “mainstream” not to conservative not to liberal source for a blog that is supposed to be inclusive of all
Just my opinion
Steve Camp said,
“Truth is not easily offended; error doesn’t want to be challenged.”
That’s a interesting point Steve. By the way, I notice that Mr. White does not have comboxes on his “blog”. As a matter of fact, I checked your site, and although you are using blogging software you have disabled comboxes as well. Afraid of interacting with your readers much?
Dear Mr. Akin:
I think it’s a shame that sincere people with no desire to offend might be shut out of a friendly and respectful dialogue here due to a principled problem with using the word “Catholic” in light of a sincere issue with referring to a Church to which they do not adhere as the universal Christian Church. At the same time, I recognize the need to avoid genuinely offensive terms. (There’s absolutely no call ever to use terms like “Romish,” “Papist,” and the like.) In light of these two genuinely valid concerns, and in recognition of the fact that it’s your page and you have the right to do with it what you like, I would respectfully suggest that you consider coming up with some term that can be designated for non-offensive use other than one that could be read as forcing sincere non-Catholics to use language they feel they cannot in good conscience use. You could make up a word if you had to. The wise and mutually respectful approach to this sort of situation, in my humble opinion, is to work with people who want to converse with you in a respectful way, try to work around any terminological issues that may be interfering with the dialogue, rather than lay down the law on matters of terminology. I think if both sides want to find a mutually respectful way to deal with the situation, there’s almost always a way to deal with it. Anyway, that’s just my two cents.
Best regards.
CThomas
John –
To my knowledge, Jimmy hasn’t said he only allowes Vatican-approved sources. I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea.
It is, however, a good idea to link to RELIABLE sources. Anyone with a minimum of Photoshop skills could, for example, photoshop an image of Mother Theresa onto one of a Hindu temple and thus claim it as “evidence” of their claims that Mother Theresa worshiped Hindu idols. If the picture is on a reliable source known for its credibility, it would be given more weight than if it were on a homemade GeoCities site that anyone with 30 minutes and basic HTML knowledge could create.
CThomas –
Your concern has already been addressed earlier in the thread.
CThomas, in light of the point raised many times before in this discussion, perhaps you would care to comment on why many Christians, including Catholics, have no problem referring to other Christians and Christian communities by their self-designated names as “Orthodox,” “Episcopal,” “Presbyterian,” “Evangelical,” “Church of Christ,” etc., not to mention sub-Christian sects such as “Jehovah’s Witnesses,” “Christian Science,” etc. — regardless whatever theological caveats they may have regarding the correct application of these terms — but when it comes to the Catholic Church, suddenly some non-Catholics have a principled objection to using the correct name of this one community.
As I have often said in the past, I regard it as a sign of profound security that my Church’s claims regarding her unique stewardship of the orthodox faith, her fulness of the episcopacy and presbyterate, her fully evangelical character, her claim that in her alone the church of Christ subsists, are in no way threatened by the names other Christians are known by.
Correspondingly, the discomfort that some non-Catholic Christians feel with according to my communion her proper name I can only regard as reflecting profound insecurity, and the realization that their claim to “catholicity” is dubious indeed, requiring unceasing vigilance in defending it lest it melt away in the presence of a name.
I should expect, for sake of consistency, that phrases such as “swimming the Tiber” would also be off-limits.
John says:
“Do you expect the church to come clean about Mother Teresa praying to Hindu idols? Have they yet come clean about the abuse scandal where just today a well known Australian Bishop lashed out in disgust over the lack of leadership?”
As expected from the guy who venemously remarked:
“As far as Mother Teresa, she participated in Hindu ritual which is pagan as far as I can recall and for all the time she spent in India have any Hindus found Christ or was she abiding by her orders and finding what is good in all faiths and not try to convert these pagans? IF that deserves sainthood as compared to the many martyrs who died for the cause and name of Jesus Christ, his teachings uncompromised and unsoiled”
Posted by: John | Jan 26, 2007 7:45:04 AM
At the very least, Steve Camp is an Anti-Catholic; thus, it is understandable why he would attempt to attack the Catholic Church and all who would abide faithfully by its Teachings — for they are the Teachings of Christ.
I am not saying that this in any way is acceptable but it is understandable.
But John, a self-proclaimed ‘traditional’ Catholic, is nothing but a Judas Iscariot wanting to destroy the True Church — even if it means joining the ranks of Anti-Catholics and engaging in sheer calumny — just because he selfishly wants to mold the Church in his image, and not in Christ’s!
As traditionally taught, those who have come to know that the Catholic Church is the True Church have a greater burden placed upon them and a greater responsibility.
Thus, John condemns himself and his treacherous actions against the True Church will ultimately be judgment against him at the Last Judgment!
(blink) Why? How is that “consistent” with not using pejorative names for other people’s communions and/or not making inflammatory charges without evidence? What does the one have to do with the other?
I don’t believe that phrase to be largely pejorative in usage. It’d probably sail. *snicker*
I will be monitoring your blog to see if anyone here ever shares a personal story or testimony of any kind that cannot be supported by anything except their word.
Oh please!
Since when did this blog become The Steve Camp Blog that is subject to the Steve Camp Secret Police?
Also, if this guy paid any attention to past threads, when there’s a slanderous statement made by a commenter, folks like Tim J., SDG, Jimmy Akin and/or other Catholics are quick to castigate the commenter(s).
BTW, there was no inflammatory assertions made. My friend had direct conversation with MT before her passing. I am sorry her testimony which I also supported by her own words below undermined the assertions of many here. Who, btw, according to your rules, cannot back up any claims to the contrary that I have posted.
Oh, and I guess I should point out all the dishonest transactions that Steve Camp have engaged in as related to me by a fellow Protestant friend of mine — not to mention, some illicit affairs!
I guess that’s the duplicity of RCC teaching. When the personal testimony supports your views, you canonize it; when it opposes your views, you make up more rules to limit honest and forthright discourse.
I guess that’s the duplicity of Protestant teaching — if you can’t attack directly the Teachings of the Church, resort to underhanded tricks such as hearsay, calumny and sheer deception in order to bring down its Faithful.
(blink) Why? How is that “consistent” with not using pejorative names for other people’s communions and/or not making inflammatory charges without evidence? What does the one have to do with the other?
From Rule 23: …and any cognate terms based on the terms “Roman” or “Pope.”
“Swimming the Tiber” is based on the concept of “Roman” (even if not strictly cognatic).
JAY D: === I should expect, for sake of consistency, that phrases such as “swimming the Tiber” would also be off-limits. ===
Why? It’s not as if the Tiber is shark infested, polluted, or littered with rapids whirlpools and weeds. It’s just a nice quiet river; a quick swim with nice folks on the far shore toasting marshmallows and barbecuing souvlaki.
The principle in question is concerned with substituting alternate vocabulary for correct references to the Catholic Church, the Catholic faith and/or Catholic Christians. “Swimming the Tiber” does not propose any such substitute vocabulary. It’s simply a colloquial expression for converting to Catholicism.
The Roman association of the phrase doesn’t seem to pose an insurmountable obstacle, at least in the (usual?) case of a convert to the Latin Church; in the case of a convert who joins one of the Eastern Churches it would probably be less apropos.
Steve Camp,
A friend of mine told me that his fourth cousin’s college roomate’s uncle’s half-sister saw you dancing naked in the woods whilst participating in a Wiccan ritual.
So, really, you don’t have a leg to stand on in your assertion regarding Mother Theresa.
I, of course, feel no need to offer any proof or to substantiate my claim in any way, given that you’ve previously said that hearsay is an acceptable (and infallible) source of knowledge.
SDG — I could care less about the terminological issue, so I’m not the right person to address your questions. (At the same time, I think engaging in rank speculation that these sorts of terminological concerns somehow mask some deep-seating “profound insecurity” strikes me as, shall we say, a real stretch.) I’m not interested in arguing with you, I’m just expressing the opinion, which I would think would be shared by most, that the right thing to do in this sort of situation would be to work with people on language issues like this.
Regards,
CThomas
Sorry, does anyone find “swimming the Tiber” to be offensive? Anyone? Bueller?
Then it’s okay to use. The whole point is to avoid intentionally using terms that offend other’s sensibilities.
Wods like “Romish” and “Papist” are obviously derisive. I don’t really see the comparison to “swimming the Tiber”.
CThomas,
Since the Catholic Church has alwasy called itself the Catholic Church and its memebers Catholics why not respectfully use our name?
If you felt you couldn’t address me as Inocencio (which is my name) you expect me to make up a name you like? Is that what you are really saying???
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
CThomas, if you would read Jimmy’s opening comments on this page, he already addressed your concern in this sentence.
“This is a Catholic blog, and Catholics are to be called Catholics on it.” Please read above.
“…why not respectfully use our name?”
Because anti-Catholicism is the last acceptable prejudice.
The below is just ONE example of how folks here don’t look too kindly on slanderous remarks, be the target person a Catholic OR PROTESTANT!
Link:
Jerry Falwell Passes
As I mentioned, folks like Tim J., SDG, Jimmy Akin and/or other Catholics are quick to castigate the commenter(s) who make slanderous remarks — even if the target person happens to be PROTESTANT!
Although, I wouldn’t expect STEVE CAMP to act as Tim J. did in the example I provided and, one, dedicate a posting to a Roman Catholic individual, and second, defend that Roman Catholic from any such calumny!
The term “yellow” is sometimes used as a derogatory term referring to people of Asian ancestry. Does this mean, for the sake of “consistency” that we must eschew use of the term “black” to refer to people of African ancestry? Of course not.
As a general rule, you shouldn’t call a group by a name that it deems offensive. That’s just being polite.
Inocencio, I’m not advocating the view that it’s problematic to call Catholics Catholic. That’s what I call Catholics. But if somebody said they had some problem with calling me “CThomas” and gave a serious reason for doing so, and if I were more interested in discussing important truths with him than in finding reasons to be offended, I would work with him. E.g., “Don’t call me Bozo the Clown, but maybe call me ‘C.'” If I thought the guy was serious and not just pulling my chain, it would be silly of me not to try to respect where he’s coming from and work to get past linguistic hang-ups. But if it’s more about “intellectual combat,” then I could use his refusal to call me CThomas as a club to beat the guy with and get offended and end the conversation.
I hope I’m not being to blunt in my language — I mean no disrespect.
Regards,
CThomas
“You know who you are,” I did read that sentence, but with respect I don’t see how that sentence addresses the concern I’m raising at all. Sorry if I’m being dense.
Regards,
CThomas
Sorry, does anyone find “swimming the Tiber” to be offensive? Anyone? Bueller?
Then it’s okay to use. The whole point is to avoid intentionally using terms that offend other’s sensibilities.
OK then. This is good to know. From know on, on Jimmy Akin’s blog I can refer to swimmers of the Tiber and everyone will know who I am talking about and no one’s sensibilities will be offended.
I was wondering how I was going to distinguish Tiber traversed catholics with other catholics without resorting to Roman cognates.
CThomas,
If someone tells me they will not use my name and I have to make up one they like before we have a discussion how much sincerity can I really expect in that discussion? None, would be my guess.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Jay D.
I am not a convert so “swimmer of the Tiber” would not apply to me but Catholic would.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio, I hear where you’re coming from, and I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but imagine someone’s real name was “The Risen Christ,” and somebody said he didn’t feel comfortable calling the guy by that name for theological reasons. We can all understand where the guy’s coming from — it’s not just a completely arbitrary thing like refusing to call me “CThomas” would be. I understand the view that that’s just “The Risen Christ” is just the guy’s name and we can call him that without endorsing the meaning. But why not just avoid the issue by allowing some other choice to use, nothing offensive, just something that both sides can agree is “neutral” simply to have a conversation? Again, that’s not my view — I’m happy to call you Catholic.
God bless you too, my friend.
CThomas
“Roman Catholic” is perfectly acceptable, as “Roman” is used not as a substitute for “Catholic”, but only as a modifier.
I am both a Catholic and a Roman Catholic, but I am not a Roman.
All the confusion seems to me somewhat feigned.
Call me a Catholic or a Roman Catholic. If you can’t do that, well, it’s been nice talking to you.
CThomas,
Being Hispanic I know people named Jesus but you are right we have each stated our opinions and I appreciate your patient answers.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“Roman Catholic” is perfectly acceptable, as “Roman” is used not as a substitute for “Catholic”, but only as a modifier.
I would use Roman Catholic, but I thought the purpose of rule 23 was to get people to not use “Roman Catholic” but just use “Catholic”.
Once again: “Roman Catholic” is a perfectly acceptable term designating ONE of the 22 particular Churches of the Catholic communion, the Latin Church. I am a Roman Catholic in that I am a Catholic Christian who belongs to the Latin Church rather than the Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian or Chaldean Catholic Churches. As the Catholic Church embraces Byzantine, Alexandrian, Armenian, Antiochian and Chaldean Catholic Churches, none of which are Roman Catholic, it is not correct to refer to the entire Catholic communion as the “Roman Catholic Church.”
“Swimmers of the Tiber” could be used to refer to Catholic converts myself, but not to cradle Catholics since they stayed on the right side of the Tiber to being with. 😉
That’s an imperfect analogy, IMO. If I call someone “The Risen Christ” because it happens to be their LEGAL name, then I’m not referring to them as the person of Jesus Christ when I address them by the name that appears on legal documentation. It’s all in the intent.
Similarly, I can still call Baptists by their preferred name even though I disagree with their views and theology regarding Baptism. My recognition of the proper noun by which they refer to themselves doesn’t have any bearing on my views about the theological implications of the term “Baptist.”
JoAnna
Tiber Swim Team, class of ’03
Ohhh!
OK thanks, SDG.
No problem! 🙂
Tiber Swim Team, class of ’92
If I call someone “The Risen Christ” because it happens to be their LEGAL name
Actually, there is a person whose Legal name is Jesus Christ:
CThomas:
I can understand your position, that if someone feels uncomfortable calling you “CThomas,” (for good reasons that you can understand), you can agree on a name he/she will feel comfortable using in the interest of moving forward in discussion.
But your analogy fails in one important respect: the substitute name you will agree to be called is NOT a pejorative name, is it? I mean, if the person couldn’t call you CThomas, but wanted to call you “butt-head” or some other term which YOU would find offensive, then that is much more parallel to the situation about which we are debating. Yes, there are some who want to use the name “catholic” for themselves, and do not “feel” that calling the Catholic Church, and Catholics, by that name is “right” or acceptable to them, then most Catholics on this board would not object if they were called “brothers in Christ” or “sisters in Christ” or “separated brethren.” But virtually ALL of us, including myself, object to the “substitute” name being one which we find offensive. And, the insistence which some have of calling us “Romanists, Papists, Romish,” etc, constitutes a lack of respect and an unwillingness to pursue further dialogue.
My name is Theresa, but if someone wants to call me Mary because they like that name better, I have no problem with that. But don’t call me a name which I find offensive.
That is ALL we Catholics are asking.
In Christ,
Theresa
Esquire, I think Esau’s going to be needing your services soon!
(:
Steve has posted a detailed article addressing much of Catholic theology written by a dear friend of his, William Webster.
Check out
THIS POST
CThomas,
How about the “Roman and Eastern Catholic Churches”?
Cindy Bleil,
I read it when I finally broke down and googled Steve Camp’s name because I personally had never heard of him. His post is the same driving in circles pretending to drive straight he has done in all his comments here. With all the usual insults.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Sorry – let me try this again
THIS POST
Theresa and JD — I agree with you guys completely. My only point is that it would make more sense to work toward coming up with an adequate substitute that isn’t offensive rather than to throw down the gauntlet and say “Catholic or nothing.” We can start by throwing obviously derogatory terms like “Papist” out the window. But there’s got to be something out there that would do the trick. I’m not knowledgeable enough to offer a definitive suggestion.
Regards,
CThomas
CThomas,
Just like anything else, some people will be respectful and willing to work with us in the larger goal of constructive dialogue. However, there are always those who will say, “It’s Romanism, or nothing.” Those are the ones, I think, who will not comprimise, the consequences of which are the “Two New Rules.”
I don’t make the rules here, but I believe that whenever one is posting on any blog, they need to respect the rules of that blog – and, as Jimmy said, he did not make these rules right up front. It was only after repeatedly being confronted with those who will not grant us the same respect they require of us.
Personally, I prefer to be called Catholic, and to have my Church called Catholic, because that is our name. I would have problems even with an honest, sincere poster who said he had theological reasons for not calling us Catholics, but in the interest of sincere dialogue, I would overlook his reluctance to call me a Catholic – as long as he didn’t use an offensive term. Unfortunately, most of those who are intractible in their insistence upon calling us “Papists” are not the sincere inquirers who would respect the wishes of those of us on this board.
Sadly, they are the ones who have made it bad for those who are sincere.
Thank you, CThomas, for your willingness to call us Catholic. I appreciate it!
God Bless!
Theresa
Why not call us the Latin Rite Catholics if one can’t say Catholic? That is what we are!
–Theresa
Theresa, the problem is they don’t just want to talk about Latin Catholics. They want to talk about all Catholics, Eastern Catholics included, but they want to call us all something other than “Catholics” (e.g., “Roman Catholics”).
Or they want to call the Catholic faith shared by all something other than “Catholicism” (e.g., “Roman Catholicism”). Or they want to call the whole communion of all 22 particular Churches, Roman and otherwise, something other than “the Catholic Church” (e.g., “the Roman Catholic church”).
Better yet, some of them would like to drop the word “Catholic” altogether and just speak of “Romanists,” “Romanism,” “the church of Rome,” etc.
I don’t know, I have two sisters that both were Baptised Catholic and yet…not call themselves Catholic (one is Lutheran and I have no idea what the other one is, I don’t think she’s even sure). However, if someone says that they aren’t Catholic, then they say that they ARE Catholic they just don’t pratice their faith in that Religion anymore.
So while its true that you can’t do anything to become unCatholic, once Baptized into the faith, (which also makes it very convient for those who swim the Tiber 🙂 ) But…this is all giving me a headache and I just want to be called either “you know who you are”, which is what my Mother always called me (I was the youngest of nine and by the time she had called me all of my older sister’s names that is what she use to say…”you know who you are! 🙂 ), or, you can call me a Catholic or just say …to the poster who said this: (and then just post something that I said.) As long as you don’t call me a rude name I’ll be happy, and CThomas, IF I misunderstood you, sorry about that. I did think you were having a problem calling us Catholics, if not, we’re good.
SDG:
Oh, yes, there are many of those who want nothing more than to hijack our name for themselves, and call us by a name of their choosing – but as CThomas said, I am sure there are also those who (and i’m sure they are in the minority) have been mislead by the James Whites, and yet still have a sincere wish to dialogue. It is to them I would happily concede to the name Latin Rite Catholic, if they couldn’t call me just Catholic. (Even though I do attend the Divine Liturgy almost as often as the Tridentine Mass of the Latin Rite, or the Novus Ordo Mass, I am still a Latin Rite Catholic).
Sadly, I believe those people exist, but are in the minority.
I think it is interesting that we are perhaps the ONLY religious body (Hindu, Muslim, Jew, other Christian) who has to fight even to be called by our proper name. It’s very telling. We are certainly the most persecuted, reviled, and misunderstood. Even to our very name we are not allowed to exist!
It just reinforces in me the Truth that we are the Church Christ founded.
In Christ,
Theresa
she had called me all of my older sister’s names that is what she use to say…”you know who you are! 🙂
Sola Mei,
Esau.
Esau, (alias, “I know what you are but what am I?” Why you are a Jolly ole’ Elf, (St. Nick Himself of course.) 🙂 Either that or one of those annoying guys my brothers use to watch on T.V. back then. 😉 Can’t remember their names but I think they were also famous for such things as, “who’s on first, I don’t know who’s on second”. 🙂
“…it would make more sense to work toward coming up with an adequate substitute that isn’t offensive rather than to throw down the gauntlet and say “Catholic or nothing.”
I disagree. What do you do when someone ELSE comes along who doesn’t like the Agreed Upon Substitute Name? Come up with another… and yet another… in order to pander to their tastes and/or biases?
No thanks. “Catholic or nothing” works just fine.
The problem, as I see it, is that we have four questions here, not just one:
1. What did Mother Teresa say?
2. What did Mother Teresa mean?
3. What does the Bible say?
4. What does the Bible mean?
Obviously, questions 3 and 4 are infinitely more important than questions 1 and 2. OTOH, it seems to me that on the specific topics that seem to be at issue, the answers to questions 3 and 4 are not in question, whereas the answers to 1 and 2 may be. For isntance, we’ve already established that Catholics and Protestants are agreed that Jesus is the unique and exclusive way of salvation.
If you’d like me to quote scripture to illustrate that point, I can certainly do so as well as you or Steve Camp. I’m not sure how germane it is to produce a text illustrating the truth we already agree on, but if it would really, really make you happy to see a scripture verse, I can quote the Catechism and the Bible in one shot:
I could produce lots more verses that say the same thing, but since as I already said we all agree on this point, I’m not sure why anyone would want me to.
So. We’ve established that we agree that Jesus is the unique and exclusive way of salvation, and that the Bible and the Catechism teach this. That leaves questions 1 and 2, which are infinitely less important than 3 and 4 but are also questions that may be harder for us to ascertain with certainty.
For example, it is well known that to rightly divide the word of truth, it is necessary to compare scripture with scripture. In a similar way, to rightly understand the words of a person, it may be necessary to look at those words in the context of the overall tenor of that person’s sayings and what we can divine of their worldview.
That means we need more than a few proof-texts to establish what Mother Teresa believed, and thus what we can reasonably understand a particular individual saying to mean. We need to carefully and charitably examine as much representative evidence as we can gather of Mother Teresa’s total outlook, and then make the best judgment we can.
At this point I don’t think enough evidence has been given on what Mother Teresa said to arrive at any very firm or clear determinations as to what she meant. Some quotations may indeed sound troublingly suggestive of (not necessarily determinative of) a kind of religious indifference that is contrary to the teaching of Acts 4:12 (cf. 9:14, Jas 2:7, etc.). OTOH, there are also other quotations may suggest otherwise. In charity we must be careful not to rush to judgment on the basis of a few isolated quotations.
Does that help any? Someday I would like to repeat this exercise with regard to the following quotation:
Once again, the questions would be:
1. What did Steve Camp say?
2. What did Steve Camp mean?
3. What does the Bible say?
4. What does the Bible mean?
Any thoughts, Cindy?
You Know Who You Are:
Can’t remember their names but I think they were also famous for such things as, “who’s on first, I don’t know who’s on second”. 🙂
HEY!!! That’s Abbot and Costello!!! (I think)
I used to watch them Saturday Mornings!
That’s one of the two reasons why I’m familiar with The Andrew Sisters!
This all reminds me of the “Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran” fiasco. That turned to nothing, and this will too.
Perhaps Steve Camp has an explanation for these startling statements from some high-profile sola-scriptura’ preachers (if they paid a little more attention to the teaching authority of the Church they would sound like such idiots):
“God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person. But each one of them is a triune being by Himself. … There’s nine of them. … God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with His own personal spirit, His own personal soul, and His own personal spirit-body.” (Benny Hinn) (1)
God is “a being that stands somewhere around 6’2″, 6’3″, that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds, little better, has a [hand] span of 9 inches across.” (Kenneth Copeland) (2)
“Get … out of this malaise of thinking that Jesus and the disciples were poor. … The Bible says that He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. That’s the reason why I drive a Rolls Royce. I’m following Jesus’ steps.” (Frederick Price) (3)
A commentary on the scriptural reference to Jesus’ seamless undergarment, to prove He was rich: “John 19 tells us that Jesus wore designer clothes. … I mean, you didn’t get the stuff He wore off the rack. It wasn’t a one-size-fits-all deal. No, this was custom stuff. It was the kind of garment that kings and rich merchants wore.” (John Avanzini) (4)
“Jesus Christ knew the only way He would stop Satan is by becoming one in nature with him.” (Hinn) (5)
“Jesus was born again in the pit of hell.” (Charles Capps) (6)
“God’s on the outside looking in. He doesn’t have any legal entrée into the earth. The thing don’t belong to Him.” (Copeland) (7)
1. Hinn, Benny Hinn, TBN broadcast (3 October 90).
2. Copeland, “Spirit, Soul and Body I” (Ft. Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985), audiotape #01-0601, side 1.
3. Price, Ever-Increasing Faith, TBN broadcast (9 December 90).
4. Avanzini, Believer’s Voice of Victory, TBN broadcast (20 January 1991); see also Hanegraaff, 347-8.
5. Hinn, Benny Hinn, TBN broadcast (15 December 90).
6. Capps, Authority, 212-3.
7. Copeland, “Image of God in You III” (Ft. Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989), audiotape #01-1403, side 1.
Borrowed from http://www.paulthigpen.com/apologetics/designerunderwear.html
that’s “wouldn’t”:
Perhaps Steve Camp has an explanation for these startling statements from some high-profile sola-scriptura’ preachers (if they paid a little more attention to the teaching authority of the Church they wouldn’t sound like such idiots):
“God the Father is a person, God the Son is a person, God the Holy Ghost is a person. But each one of them is a triune being by Himself. … There’s nine of them. … God the Father, ladies and gentlemen, is a person with His own personal spirit, His own personal soul, and His own personal spirit-body.” (Benny Hinn) (1)
God is “a being that stands somewhere around 6’2″, 6’3″, that weighs somewhere in the neighborhood of a couple of hundred pounds, little better, has a [hand] span of 9 inches across.” (Kenneth Copeland) (2)
“Get … out of this malaise of thinking that Jesus and the disciples were poor. … The Bible says that He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. That’s the reason why I drive a Rolls Royce. I’m following Jesus’ steps.” (Frederick Price) (3)
A commentary on the scriptural reference to Jesus’ seamless undergarment, to prove He was rich: “John 19 tells us that Jesus wore designer clothes. … I mean, you didn’t get the stuff He wore off the rack. It wasn’t a one-size-fits-all deal. No, this was custom stuff. It was the kind of garment that kings and rich merchants wore.” (John Avanzini) (4)
“Jesus Christ knew the only way He would stop Satan is by becoming one in nature with him.” (Hinn) (5)
“Jesus was born again in the pit of hell.” (Charles Capps) (6)
“God’s on the outside looking in. He doesn’t have any legal entrée into the earth. The thing don’t belong to Him.” (Copeland) (7)
1. Hinn, Benny Hinn, TBN broadcast (3 October 90).
2. Copeland, “Spirit, Soul and Body I” (Ft. Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1985), audiotape #01-0601, side 1.
3. Price, Ever-Increasing Faith, TBN broadcast (9 December 90).
4. Avanzini, Believer’s Voice of Victory, TBN broadcast (20 January 1991); see also Hanegraaff, 347-8.
5. Hinn, Benny Hinn, TBN broadcast (15 December 90).
6. Capps, Authority, 212-3.
7. Copeland, “Image of God in You III” (Ft. Worth: Kenneth Copeland Ministries, 1989), audiotape #01-1403, side 1.
Borrowed from http://www.paulthigpen.com/apologetics/designerunderwear.html
SDG:
Thank you.
You’ve just confirmed by catechism and Scripture what we have known about Mother Theresa all along.
“Now who can argue with that?”
This all reminds me of the “Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran” fiasco. That turned to nothing, and this will too.
I am not sure that is really true, at least to the first part. Though it is possible to put a fairly charitable spin on the ‘Koran kissing incident’, it will always be at least a footnote to John Paul’s pontificate that scandalized a large number of the faithful. But John Paul was the Pope when he did that which is a very far cry from Mother Theresa’s position. One was the head of the Magisterium, while the other was a non-theologian nun. But even considering that, Catholic theology tells us even a Pope can be personally heterodox, only that he cannot teach heterodox beliefs.
Was Mother Theresa entirely orthodox or not? No one here can answer that as the clipped public statements do not contain enough information for us to determine that. What we do know is that Mother Theresa was certainly more orthodox in her faith than either Steve or Cindy are. But then again, Steve and Cindy define orthodoxy as agreeing with them which makes discussion of the whole question fruitless.
Cindy:
I think you’ve done something less than due diligence regarding questions 1 and 2, and something less than charity as well.
Any interest in confirming or denying what we all know about Steve Camp? No, I thought not.
what we have known about Mother Theresa all along.
Cindy, those who do not understand Catholicism do not know about Mother Teresa.
SDG:
Brutha, don’t let them get you down.
You’ve been doing great!
I wish I was as blessed as you are — you seem to have been granted by Our Father in Heaven with such patience and fortitude!
No wonder your wife is so proud of you!
Keep defending the Faith!
You and Tim J. are blessings to this blog!
If Martin Luther or John Calvin had kissed the Koran, we prots wouldn’t have heard the end of it. So far as I can tell, only Jimmy Akin had the guts to point out that it was wrong.
If Martin Luther or John Calvin had kissed the Koran, we prots wouldn’t have heard the end of it.
Uhhhh… I don’t know how well read you are as far as Martin Luther or John Calvin, but they did things that were far worse than merely kiss the Koran.
And yet I have never seen such things pointed out or criticized by fellow Protestants on their blogs in spite of the historical facts therein — I wonder why?
Not at all, Jeb. I agree with Jimmy that if it was a Koran and if JP2 knew that and kissed it anyway, that was a scandal and an offense against the duties of his office.
On a much less important subject, I’m curious what you as a Protestant think about Steve Camp’s behavior in recent threads.
Steve DG,
By “only Jimmy” I was referring to Catholic blogdom, which I don’t think you are a member of yet.
I haven’t been following what Mr. Camp has said.
Esau, were they the 3 Stooges or Abbot and Costello? I don’t know, (sometimes, some on this thread sound like the 3 stooges.:) Not naming any names but “they know who they are!” Sometimes I think I am one of them. 🙂
Also, (not to you Esau), but to those who don’t know or understand that a Catholic can and does do all kinds of things in order to show respect for other’s and their beliefs and that sometimes it is not what it appears at all to the casual observer. Plus, sometimes outright lies are told about us Catholics, can you imagine that? But yet…it’s true. Have a good night all, perhaps I will post again another day. Perhaps not, all this back and forth posting and argueing has given me a headache.
Oh, and one last thing for Steve C and Cindy, I posted something that Blessed Mother Teresa said and this is the Bible verse for it:John 6:65..And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” (thats pretty much what Blessed Mother Teresa said to someone else, that I posted (you can look it up on here and try to find it if you want, I have no idea now where or when I even posted it.) God bless and good night all.
Jeb, Steve Camp has been quite active in this very thread. All you need to do is scroll up.
Regarding the putative Koran incident and the Catholic blogosophere, Jimmy has carved out a rather unique niche; It’s hard to think how the subject would come up on the blog of, say, Dawn Eden or Ed Peters.
Correction on my part I wrote:
>Retrictivists believe ONLY THOSE who formally profess Christ can be saved and that there is no such thing as “Invincible Ignorance” & thus all non-Christians below the age of reason are without exception damned.
Sould say “all non-Christians ABOVE the age of reason..etc.”
Interestingly & contraditory modern Restrictivists in general believe in infant salvation even though infants like invincibly ignorant non-Christians can’t formally profess Faith in Jesus.
False teachings are funny that way.
Interestingly & contraditory modern Restrictivists in general believe in infant salvation even though infants like invincibly ignorant non-Christians can’t formally profess Faith in Jesus.
False teachings are funny that way.
I am curious what Jeb, Cindy, and SteveC think about this. I remember, some 20 years ago, (ack!) I covertly developed a theology to address this problem of the ‘seeking but ignorant’. Basically it was a very primitive version of the Catholic teaching. I mentioned my thoughts to someone who had “swum the Thames” and become an anglo-catholic priest. His encouraging words,”almost you are entering the kingdom” terrified my fundamentalist soul and I stuffed the thoughts into a dark dusty corner of my psyche for 16 years.
So Steven Camp… what are your thoughts on this?
Do you just ‘wanna be a White-Webster-Mccarthur clone’?
What do YOU think on this theological issue?
Scripture gives plenty of information on this and so does the Fathers and early church documents.
“It should be noted, of course, that pagan peoples have also worshipped a bunch of false gods, as attested in scripture… things that were an abomination before God, so certainly (as some have already pointed out) invincible ignorance saves no one.”
That is not who we are talking about concerning invincible ignorance. Here’s what St. Paul says;
Romans Chapter 2,
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them
16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.
If you had certainity beyond a shadow of a doubt in something, why would you need Faith to believe it? Perhaps God made it this way, we can’t have absolute certainity but we can have near certainity and Faith. Mother Teresa may have had doubts, but we cannot say she lacked faith – or she wouldnt have persisted for all those years.
Here’s the point;
The Word is not a book. The Word, as St. John the Evangelist tells us, is Jesus. A real living person, who is God and who is also a man.
Now who among us has the right or authority to tell Jesus that he cannot save someone who has not heard his name through no fault of their own? (If it is anyone’s fault that they have not heard the gospel it is our fault, because maybe we haven’t been doing the job that we were assigned.)
That is all that Catholic teaching says. We cannot restrict God’s right to save whomever he wills. We have been given the gospel and we have been given the sacraments and the Bible and everything else we could possibly need to secure our salvation. That is what we are responsible for. And we are responsible to tell everyone that gospel.
The Catholic Church does not claim to know who these people might be whom God saves outside of the Church nor how many there are. Likewise the Church does not claim to know if anyone is in Hell or who they are. As Father Mitch Pacwa says, that’s a management issue, and we are in sales.
We have been given much and we cannot assume that anyone is saved outside of the Church, so our responsibility has not changed. The great commission is still the commission of the Church. At the same time we cannot presume to limit God.
>If Martin Luther or John Calvin had kissed the Koran, we prots wouldn’t have heard the end of it……
That is because Martin Luther was too busy telling Philip of Hess he could marry two women at the same time & inciting the peasants rebellion then turning against the peasants and calling for their slaughter. Leading to the death of over 100,000 German peasants. Luther never repented this & he even “married” Katite Luther on the day the revolt he started was put down & yet somehow Faith Alone excuses this evil and lack of repentance. But clearly Koran kissing is worst in the eyes of Jeb.
The less said about Calvin & how he ran Geneva like a police state & ordered the torture & execution of his opponants while hypocritically denouncing rome for doing the same the better.
And let’s not forget Martin Luther’s anti-Semitic work, “On the Jews and Their Lies.”
You know, it’s funny — I was a Lutheran my entire life, and I never knew Martin Luther was such an anti-Semite until I went to college and read excerpts from the above in my “History of the Holocaust” class.
Kissing the Koran is not a sin. To know if there is sin involved one would have to know the Pope’s intention. The Pope views as found in his Encylicals are self evidence so it is clear the Pope wasn’t endorcing Islam.
If I kiss the hand of the Queen of England I am merely showing her respect. I am not acknowleging Her as my Queen (I’m an American)nor Head of the Church in England over the Pope. If Canadian Traditionalist Pete Vere kisses the Queen’s hand he is acknowleging Her as his Queen but NOT as head of the Church in England over the Pope. If an Anglican Englishmen kisses her hand he means both.
Yet the action is the same but the meaning is dictated by intention. The critics of the Pope clearly don’t understand this simple concept.
“That is all that Catholic teaching says. We cannot restrict God’s right to save whomever he wills.”
‘Zackly.
Who is going to stand up and tell God that he can’t save this or that person? I have enough to look after with regard to my own sanctity.
The line from Fr. Pacwa (on sales & management) is terrific, too. Spot on.
“The critics of the Pope clearly don’t understand this simple concept.”
Some of them spend a big chunk of their lives trying to play a game of “Gotcha!”
Since it is not included on the list is term “red neck mackrel snapper” OK? 🙂
There are legitimate criticisms of the Catholic (Roman Rite/Latin) that would be prone to certain words you would prefer others not to utilize even though they might be historically accurate.
I preface this with the fact that I am Catholic of the Roman Rite and very happy with my cultural, spiritual, and ecclesiastical heritage.
I prefer the Tridentine (post Trent/pre Vatican II) Mass although certainly believe any liturgy is valid as recognized by the See of Peter and keeping with the specific rubrics of that Liturgical Tradition.
Many Catholics do not know that the Catholic Church is NOT the ROMAN Catholic Church per se but a number of “Churches” (I think 22 but I could be wrong) with certain specific language and definitions used for Rites and Churches.
I am not an expert but am saying this as many of my fellow ROMAN Catholics are ignorant (ignorant not used as a pejorative here but as descriptive) of the aspects of Eastern Rites which are sui juris and thus are not under the jurisdiction of our Bishop and Cardinal system in the US (I realize this is the internet so no disrespect to non US readers here) but have I belive called Eparchys. There is a good link from the EWTN Website by a gentleman (I don’t know him personally) named Anthony Dragani if memory serves me correctly or directly east2west.com or maybe .org. There is also a Byzantine.net or something like that. Wikipedia also has a list of the different Rites and “Churches” in union with Rome that I think most have corresponding either Orthodox or “Oriental” non-union Churches with the notable exception of the Maronites.
The reason I mention the above is that there is some dark history we (as Roman/Latin Catholics) have in terms of forced “Latinization” and other historical problems we caused. Also, many Roman Catholic, even friends of mine, elevate (at least sometimes) culture and outward aesthetics over the internal substance which is certainly present at our Catholic brothers of different Rites no matter how exotic they may seem. Many Catholics (Roman) especially in the US do not know that there are Married (not Anglican converts) Catholic priests who have always had that tradition, or priests with beards, or spiritual devotions that do not include the wonderful Rosary. In terms of Liturgy, they have liturgies just as reverent and sacred as those who promote the Tridentine Rite want usually in accord with the ancient Liturgies as designed (by God but through) St. Basil and/or St. John Chrystostom–but also some different traditions in than Christian Egypt, Ethiopia, and Armenia (although at least with those 3 and some Assyrians, and Syrians in India–they are considered Monosphytes or Miaphytes–although most have considered at this point semantic and political disagreements although they accept the Council of Nicea they did not and some do not accept the Council of Chalcedon–although those in union with Rome certainly accept Chalcedon)
These liturgies have ancient/sacred liturgical languages like Biblical Greek or Old Slavonic or the Geez script/Ahrmaic (not the same as Aramaic spoke by Jesus per se but the Geez Egyptian and Ethiopian spoken language) as well as venacular Arabic etc.
These Christian communities, even those in union with Rome are not always recognized. Many of them are persecuted by both Muslims and others even in the State of Israel (at least as perceived by some). This persecution is considered by some to be heightened more recently by the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and families that had wealth and education in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and other places have left or even been killed. The Egyptian Copts actually welcomed the Islamic invaders as better than the heavy handed Byzantines and Melkites not just because of Chalecedon but politics and oppression. Ethiopia (which sent represents to the Lateran Council and were perceived to be followers of Prebsyter John) was an independent Christian Nation that survived the separation from the Christian West and Islamic invaders (sometimes with the help of Portugal) and had an ancient and proud culture that maintained independence for centuries. These Oriental Christians believe that Jesus is True God and True Man (the question lies in the hypostatic union although some claim the Monosphytes only believe Jesus is True God and the Man is incidental although the Copts will tell you this is not true), have apostolic succession according to the teachings of the Catholic Church (as do the Orthodox), thus valid (although perhaps illicit) Sacraments, believe in the Real Presence of the Eucharist (although some difference when it becomes It during the Liturgy and a Sacrificial Priesthood. They honor the Blessed Mother Mary as the Theotokos (God bearer) and believe in her Assumption after the Dormition.
3 incidents of Roman/Latin oppression and division by us to the Universal Church are/were:
1. The 4th Crusade called by (I think Innocent the III) in the 13th Century that did not go to the Holy Land but sacked Constantinople and is remembered to this day by the bitter memories of Monks on Athos to common man in streets of Greece. This weakened the Byzantine Christian East and caused serious historical and emotional damage. The Venetians cut a lot of deals with the Turks for trade and weakened Christianity with the merchants and Doge of Venice.
This is still a symbol of division and protest to this day and why there were protests against the current and the last Pope.
The interesting part is that at least some of the Paleogious Emporers, while retaining Greek Liturgy, where in union with Rome, perhaps for political reasons. But there was an attempt to enforce Latin, certain types of dress etc.
2. The Jesuits and other Portuguese in Ethiopia had an opportunity to help Ethiopia (and did in some military battles) but again tried to force Latinization, Latin language, Western Cassocks etc when there was an older tradition in Ethiopia of Christianity and Christianity as the state religion with certain praxis that included styles of art, iconography, church design, monasticism etc that was theologically correct and truly indigeneous. The Italians, supposedly with Blessings from the Papacy tried to invade Ethiopia in the late 1800s and again during WWII.
Violence, war, invasion, forced Latinization, deprivation of Christian (not pagan or uncivilized) culture was tried.
3. In the United States, Archbishop Ireland of Minnesota forced many Eastern Rite Catholics in full union of Rome out of the Catholic Church and is sarcastically called the founder of Modern American Orthodoxy. Even if they were not forced out per se, he did not want them to have their legitimate traditions of married priests, bearded priests, different liturgy etc.
Archbishop Ireland insulted the widower priest Alexis Toth and wanted his flock to learn English and be part of the German or Polish parishes already present. He did not respect the tradition of icons, married priests, beards, the Church as a catethical tool, venacular or sacred languages different than Latin etc. This caused law suits, family fights, Churches and families being split and the growth of Eastern Christian Orthodoxy in America. The American Bishops did not want separate jurisdiction for these Eastern Rite Catholics (Mostly Ruthenian/”Rusyn” from the Carpatho Mountains in the Austro Hungarian mountains basically related to modern day Ukrainians although settled in different countries in the Catholic Empire with full separate liturgical and cultural rites and in full union with Rome.
So when some of these Eastern Catholics or Orthodox Christians speak of Roman or Latinization as a pejorative there is a historical and logical justification.
I realize the impetus for the new rule was more from the Protestant polemics (who cannot understand the nuance of what I just posted) and not because of a historical view and a recognition of forced Latinization and historical errors of the Church.
I want to close to say that I believe the Church is Divine and in a Supernatural way perfect, and we should all be in union with Peter.
Historical flaws of a 2000 year old Church with over a Billion members does not mean that is wrong–but neither should it mean that we think we are perfect in a human/historical/temporal sense nor that even the great times of the Church such as the Medeival (which is historically better than the Protestant or Secular polemics) or the great art and architecture of the Rennaisance (which also produced a lot of decadence and sin besides great art and accomplishment) or the English language Oxform movement or a real (or sometimes mythological) 1950s American Catholicism–that these are historical epochs and cultural issues are not the same as theological issues even if they are important or good. We must respect other cultures and have not always done so from a sense of superiority and imperialism in a negative sense that could use the term “Roman”.
Again, “Roman” has produced much greatness also and there is a need for uniformity and universalism but not to destroy earlier Christian traditions or not even realize they exist or not to also merge with later cultures that may have also been treated badly or at least imperfectly.
The bottom line is that some negative use of Roman/Latin–Latinization and other words may be justified depending on the topic and who is using it, in what context and why.
As in all historical discussions, they are not matters of dogma–I do believe what I wrote is correct and should be listened to but it is prudential and I could be wrong. I think I am well informed but come humbly before you to discuss this issue and if I am wrong in my thesis (which I do strongly believe) or individual historical or theological points (which is possible as I have not annotated this or provided too much aprobation but you can check the facts on the Catholic Encyclopedia, Wikipedia and others as well as websites of the Eastern Rite Churches)–I am willing to admit error when confronted it on these non dogmatic issues as I am writing this as a blog post and not an academic work and it is somewhat late for me and I am typing fast.
I do hope this post is helpful to you and provides some context for certain words that may be used.
Thank you for reading and allowing me to post.
Please pray for me as I pray for this Blog and the readers and for the unity of Christianity.
Some more thoughts on culture and how some Roman Catholics who brought some good things like the inherent Truth of the faith, a good per se, as well as stopped human sacrifice, and brought written language, the wheel and other things.
Also brought death and destruction, genocide, outright killing in some cases, more often unintentionally through disease, extreme racism and classism to be seen even today, slavery or forms of servitude and exploitation–which again have lead to problems to this day.
Also, perhaps a lack of respect of culture that did not cause perhaps the more positive early merger of Greek thought into Christianity with the Early Church Fathers and Justin Martyr, John Damascene or the later merger with Aristotle with St. Thomas Aquinas or the natural merger of positive European pagan concepts to Christianity which created the greatness of Latin/Western/European Culture.
Some thoughts from the Sarabite website:
(Check out this interesting Catholic blog if you have not already)
Dr. Sabine Hyland wrote a book a few years back entitled, The Jesuit and the Incas, on one of the first mestizo clergy in Peru, Fr. Blas Valera. A son of one of the conquistadores and an Inca noblewoman, he was one of the first scholars to do a comparison of ancient Incan civilization with the European and classical world, and created a world view quite favorable to the conquered empire. Indeed, it was Fr. Valera’s contention that Inca religion was quite close to Christianity, down to an almost Christian idea of an incarnate God named Viracocha, and an absolute creator god named Illa Tecce. Valera wanted the Spanish clergy to begin to use these names for the Christian God and Jesus Christ, but to no avail. In the end, Fr. Valera was framed on charges of fornication and imprisoned by the Jesuit order for four years. Scholars now believe that he was really imprisoned for syncretic heresy. Only through the intervention of some influential Jesuits was he finally freed and sent to Spain, where he died in a pirate assault on Cadiz in 1597.
Besides being a student of Latin American history and culture, the story of this Jesuit compels me for other theological reasons. It comes down to the now classical division in Christian thought between what belongs to the world and what belongs to the Gospel. For “world optimists”, such as St. Clement of Alexandria and the Jesuits of the “Chinese rites” controversy, all cultural and intellectual forms can be preparations for the Gospel: there is a natural piety and intellectual striving that prepares the way for the Good News of Jesus Christ, and it too can be incorporated in the Christian life. For those more pessimistic about our fallen human state, from Tertullian to the Protestant Reformers, culture is more a hinderance to the pure Gospel rather than an aide. Not only does Athens have nothing to do with Jerusalem, but Jerusalem had nothing to do with any place else.
Since the latter view is rarely taken to the severe extremes of people like Ulrich Zwingli who didn’t even allow hymns in his services or a Quaker prayer meeting, what usually occurs in the process of propagating the Gospel in some cases is an idealization of what the New Testament religion should resemble. In some places, like in those of the radical Reformation, it takes the form of a dull imagining of what the worship of the ancient synagogue and early Church must have looked like. In others, such as the Americas, relations of power also came into play. Christianity was taught to the conquered peoples, but as the Christianity of the conquerer. It came to the extreme in the times of Fr. Valera in Peru, when the Spanish conquerors insisted that the indigenous peoples use the Spanish word to refer to the Christian God (“Dios”) rather than the Quechua word. In this and other ways, Christianity was imposed as a white man’s religion for a white god.
Valera, taught Quechua by his mother, is one of the few voices who objected to this process. He insisted that Inca civilization was not barbaric, but rather had many of the same features of the foundational cultures of Greece and Rome in Europe. Quechua itself for Valera served the same role in the Inca Empire as Latin did in Europe; it was considered a complex lanuage of the court and scholars that united the vast Andean empire. The Jesuit priest also insisted that the Inca were fundamentally monotheistic in their religion and unlike their cousins in North America, they did not practice human sacrifice. Even such classical institutions of the West as monks and vestal virgins had their parallels in classical Incan culture. In this way, Fr. Valera felt that Christianity would come as naturally to the natives of Peru as it did to the pagans of Europe. Unfortuneatly, according to Hyland, this opinion branded Valera as a heretic and led to his years of incarceration.
Posthumously, of course, our mestizo Jesuit is the victor in terms of what has happened in history. Especially with the Second Vatican Council, inculturation is encouraged in many parts of the world that are newer to the Christian message. In many places, the cultures of the places where missionaries arrive are no longer denigrated, but respected. We can argue the merits of this point of view, but what does this have to do with us who who live in historically Christian societies?
I have unfortunately been involved in many milieu where there was only one acceptable idea of how the Gospel could be incarnate in society. With the Society of St. Pius X, the Gospel reached its perfect incarnation either in the High Middle Ages, or in France in the right-wing movements leading up to the suppression of the Action Francaise. With the Orthodox, the Christian imagination will always be stuck before the fall of Constantinople. Even in many mainline Catholic circles, culture can only advance by going backwards, either in music, literature, or the plastic arts. If there is a real crisis of Christian praxis in my opinion, however, it is the crisis of the Christian imagination. Christians must always attempt see the beauty of Christ in the world in which they live, not in a world that has long passed into memory.
One old rule just came to mind: #3.
Bill, I just don’t read the long posts.
A long post, but worth reading, especially the first one. Thanks for the historical info, Michael.
It was posted:
“Kissing the Koran is not a sin. To know if there is sin involved one would have to know the Pope’s intention. The Pope views as found in his Encylicals are self evidence so it is clear the Pope wasn’t endorcing Islam.”
Well lets see. The “Kiss of peace” and the “kissing of the bible” have been part of the Catholic mass for centuries. The freemasons as part of their ritual require all new members to denounce the “blasphemous act of kissing of the Holy Bible”. Webster’s dictionary defines a kiss as “to touch or caress with the lips as an act of affection, greeeting, etc”.
So you have the Vicar of Christ not knowing what he was doing, showing affection to a book or worse yet greeting it, a book which denies the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Our Lord and saviour Jesus Christ, infallibly declared as One in being with the father and Holy Spirit by the Council of Florence??? Are you actually saying the Vicar of Christ could be that naive or ignorant, or does he truly love and adore the religion of Islam and for that matter all faiths as being equal? He has said time and time again that we all worship the same God,which again has been defined by an infallbile Council and including the Holy Spirit and Our Lord which Islam denies!
Infallible teachings of the Catholic Church:
These three persons are one God, and not three gods, because the three have one substance, one essence, one nature, one divinity, one immensity, one eternity… Whoever, therefore, has adverse or contrary opinions the Church rejects and anathematizes and declares to be foreign to the Christian body which is the Church.” (Council of Florence, “Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)
Michael, I really enjoyed reading the first one too and understood most of it, although, I am a Latin rite Catholic myself and was taught by Orders of St. Francis and St. Dominic. Most of what you posted I was taught in grade School. Of course more Church History was taught in High School and I do wish now that I had gone to some College like the Franciscian one in Stubenville.
However, while I find your post interesting, they are awful long, even though informative and certainly more interesting than some of the drivel posted in other’s long post that just go on and on and don’t know how to apologize when they are wrong. 🙂
“Are you actually saying the Vicar of Christ could be that naive or ignorant?”
Could be. Neither is a sin.
But you will believe what you want about JPII, regardless of any evidence.
I don’t think that is true. When I was a child (and a Protestant), I was a Rainbow Girl for several years (The Rainbow Girls is the daughter organization of the Freemasons). Part of the initiation ritual involved kissing the Bible. If the Freemasons really did forbid kissing the Bible, why would their daughter organization include such an act as part of the initiation ritual?
Joanna posted:
“I don’t think that is true. When I was a child (and a Protestant), I was a Rainbow Girl for several years (The Rainbow Girls is the daughter organization of the Freemasons). Part of the initiation ritual involved kissing the Bible. If the Freemasons really did forbid kissing the Bible, why would their daughter organization include such an act as part of the initiation ritual?”
The masons despised the Catholic church AND the Catholic bible. After you kissed the bible were you asked to renounce such?? Think back now…….If your going to make such as statement please back yourself up
John,
You need to hold yourself to the same standard.
You said JPII on the other thread received the mark of shiva with dung. You were completely refuted on all points. Just accept that you don’t know what you are talking about. It is very obvious to everyone.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Salvation Through The Church?
Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church:
“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: ‘For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'” Pg. 215, #816
Here, the 1994 catechism reaffirms the existing teaching of Vatican II, that salvation can be obtained only through the Roman Catholic church. The catechism leaves no doubt that the Catholic church is necessary for salvation:
“…all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation…” Pg. 224, #846
Past popes have taught this doctrine, as have previous catechisms and church fathers. Here is but one example…
On May 7, 2001, Pope John Paul II told 2,000 youth gathered at the Greek-Melkite Cathedral of Damascus that “you cannot be a Christian if you reject the Church founded on Jesus Christ.”1
Catholic friend, you personally may not believe this, but your pope does. And it is an official doctrine of your religion.
If you check God’s Word on this subject, you will not find a single verse requiring one to go through a church to be saved. In fact, the opposite is taught:
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Romans 10:13
When Jesus died on the cross, He paid the full price for the sins of all mankind. According to God’s Word, anyone can go directly to Him for salvation. Jesus Himself announced that:
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” John 3:36
Jesus preached:
“He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life…” John 5:24
“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” John 6:47
Jesus repeats this message in John 3:16, 3:18, and 6:40. If the Catholic church really is necessary for salvation, then Jesus Christ is a liar.
The Apostle Paul gives step by step instructions on how to be saved:
“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” Romans 10:9-10
Notice, no church is required. So if Catholicism is right, then the Apostle Paul is also a liar. And since he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a liar as well.
“But as many as received (trusted in) him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” John 1:12
John says you become God’s child by believing in Jesus Christ. If this Catholic doctrine is true, then John’s name must be added to the list of liars.
But John is not a liar. Jesus never requires a church for salvation:
“To him (Jesus) give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” Acts 10:43
The key is belief in Christ, not a church:
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth…” Romans 1:16
According to Paul, Timothy needed faith in Christ to be saved, not a church:
“And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” 2 Timothy 3:15
When the Philippian prison guard asked Paul, “What must I do to be saved?,” did Paul answer, “You must become a member of the Roman Catholic church?” No, he responded:
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” Acts 16:31
Remember when Jesus was hanging on the cross? The thief on the cross next to Him cried out:
“…Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.” Luke 23:42
When that dying sinner uttered those words of faith, Jesus responded by saying:
“To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” Luke 23:43
Salvation is in Christ… not in a church.
The catechism claims salvation comes “…through Christ’s Catholic Church alone…” But God’s Word says it is obtained through Jesus Christ:
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23
“… God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.” 1 John 4:9
Only Christ can offer us salvation because He alone shed His blood for us:
“Much more then, being now justi-fied by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” Romans 5:9
No church can offer salvation. Only Jesus can:
“Neither is there salvation in any other (except Jesus): for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:10, 12
Conclusion
Since the Bible and Catholicism clearly disagree, here are some questions you must answer:
• If the Catholic church is necessary to escape hell and reach heaven, would not God have clearly stated it in His Word… at least once?
• Why would Jesus repeatedly lie by saying that salvation is available through faith in Him?
•Are you willing to call Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John all liars? For your religion to be right, you must.
• For centuries, Bible believing Christians have contended that this unbiblical doctrine was created to keep members in bondage. Was it?
• Lastly, you must again answer the question, “Which will I obey and serve, the traditions of men, or the Word of God?” You cannot say “both” because each says the other is wrong.
Someday you will stand face to face with Jesus Christ. You will look Him right in the eyes. You might want to start thinking about how you are going to tell the Lord that you rejected His teachings and obeyed the traditions of sinful men because you assumed He was lying.
“For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men…” Mark 7:8
Gerald,
Have you seen this link?:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
(You might want to check out this blog’s Da Rulz regarding excessive comment length)
Gerald, did you even read this thread? If you had, you would know that there is no such thing as “Roman Catholicism”.
Did you come here for a dialogue, or did you just want to cut-and-paste a lot of “proof-texts”? (A Rule 3 violation, by the way–for the length of the material).
Do you know that “proof-texting” is meaningless, as the Bible no-where declares itself to the the Sole Rule of Faith?
Have you ever read any books by knowledgeable Catholics as to what the Catholic Church teaches?
And now, Gerald. Too much ignorance to deal with in one thread.
Sometimes I wish I were Jewish so I could say “Oy vey”.
Where does one begin to refute such nonsense? His post reminds me of the title of a Firesign Theatre album… “Everything You Know Is Wrong”.
points to John D for conciseness; points to Bill for the “stop and think” aspect. (and thanks for the :^)
What’s the score currently, Mary Kay?
Tim, Rosalind Moss says: “You cannot be more Jewish than to be Catholic.” Go ahead and say it.
Not only do we know our Church, we know its website too, try it:
http://www.vatican.va
Now you may have to cut and paste that and put it in your browser, but I am sure that most, if not all that I direct this site to are familiar with cutting and pasting. 🙂 Have a blessed day!
“Everything You Know Is Wrong”
Gerald, my friend, by this I mean that your understanding of the Bible is wrong, your understanding of what the Church actually teaches is wrong. Your premises are wrong, and therefore your conclusions are wrong.
Please avail yourself of the helpful links given by John D, above. Read slowly.
If the Catholic church is necessary to escape hell and reach heaven, would not God have clearly stated it in His Word… at least once?
Mt 16:18:
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
John 6:53-56
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall NOT have life in you.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me: and I in him.
And just how is the Holy Eucharist, historically prominent in the early church (in both Scriptural and Ecclesiastical history), received????
From those to whom Christ had given charge:
“He who hears you hears me; and he who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).
And: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven” (Matt. 18:18).
Most importantly:
Lk:22:19:
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
As St. Paul even taught:
1Cor 10:16:
16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
and
1Cor 11:29:
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
Also, remember what St. Paul taught about Tradition:
2Thes 2:15:
15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions, which you have learned, whether by word or by our epistle.
Why?
Eph 4:14:
14 That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.
And how is that accomplished?
By looking to the Church and abiding by its AUTHORITY:
Mt 18:17:
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the CHURCH, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
READ THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY for goodness sake!
Tim, You claim that I am wrong but you don’t specifically point it out. You like many former Baptists were poorly educated in your beliefs. Unfortunately you saw the volume of rigor in the Catholic church and somehow where swayed by it. I agree the Bible is not the sole rule of faith – JESUS IS! The Bible, church, your dog, Koran, … – only Jesus can save!
Tim,
It is sad when a person can not properly interpret John 6.
John 6 is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh, as I have said above. For He says, ” My words are spirit, and they are life,” which shows that He is speaking of a spiritual eating, whereby whoever eats has life, while the Jews understood Him to be speaking of bodily eating and therefore disputed with Him. But no eating can give life save the eating which is by faith, for that is the truly spiritual and living eating. As Augustine also says: “Why make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.” For the sacramental eating does not give life, since many eat unworthily. Therefore, He cannot be understood as speaking of the sacrament in this passage.
Gerald, you said this: (I took these from your above post)
1. Jesus Christ is a liar.
2. …the Apostle Paul is also a liar.
3. …Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is a liar as well.
4. John says you become God’s child by believing in Jesus Christ. John’s name must be added to the list of liars.
5. Are you willing to call Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John all liars?
Well see Gerard, what if I didn’t explain that you said all these things in the context of other things that you said as well. What if I just left them as they were, just posted bits and pieces of it, and left it at that and said:
This is what Gerald believes, he said so himself in print.
Whenever someone like you comes in here and posts something like that that the Holy Father, or someone else we love and trust says, then you are offending us and lying about our Church, that Jesus founded and taking things out of context. We don’t like it anymore than you would. So please just stop it, if you have a question, we’d be happy to answer you, but knock off the way you do it.
All Salvation does come through the Church that Jesus founded, even if you don’t understand that.
So when you read, read it all. Don’t just pick through it and take parts out of context and then try to throw them at us like you found out some “dirt” we didn’t know. Okay??? Thank you.
This thread is titled: “Two New Rules”. Let’s not let anyone hijack it, especially (another!) person who has in his mind a Straw-Man Church that *he* calls “The Roman Catholic Church”, to which *he* imputes certain dictrines, but which do not jive with what the Catholic Church teaches.
Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, and historians will tell you that there is no evidence that Peter was the first Pope. Greek Orthodox claim Peter was the bishop of Antioch and was only crucified in Rome. Peter was a bishop but was never a Pope. If Peter not the first Pope then the entire record of apostolic succession is a complete lie. If Peter was not the first Pope then you are not part of the church that Jesus founded. Maybe you belong to a cult that worships the same god as Muslims. ( See Cathecism )
Bill,
Don’t be foolish. John’s Law applies to the combox on jimmyakin.com:
JOHN’S LAW: A comment box on a public blog is not intended to relate to the subject of the blog on that page, or of any page on the blog. Rather, a comment box is merely a less-regulated format for newsgroup and bulletin board postings on any subject dear to one’s heart.
John’s Law is codified somewhere in the Blogger’s handbook, but I don’t have the chapter and verse handy.
What the Catholic Church *actually* teaches is not a secret. Anyone who wants to find out what the Church teaches can go on the internet and look up “catholic.com”, or “vatican.va”, or go to a Catholic bookstore(gasp!) or any pulbic library and get a copy of “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”.
Or, he can read only what anti-Catholics write about the Church, and remain blissfully ignorant. But he would know no more about Catholicism than he would about Judaism if he read “A History of the Jewish People”, commissioned by Adolf Hitler.
John’s Law even applies to “insiders”.
If I recall correctly, we once had a discussion about the Inquisition on a blog entry dedicated to meat on Lenten Fridays.
I am quite familiar with what Catholic Church teaches. The question is it based on truth or speculation? A good scholar will study all angles of the debate and not just drink the Koolaid from one source. Clearly Evangelicals and historians differ with the Catholic interpretation of history. So the good student will research the basis for these difference and draw his own conclusions.
Remember Mormons believe they speak the truth. Their ‘false’ truth is purely based on believing the lie of the Book of Mormon. Maybe you also are believing a lie that has been taught by the Catholic Church?
Gerald, you think you are familiar with what the Catholic Church teaches. As I posted above, you have in your mind a Straw-Man Church that *you* call “The Roman Catholic Church”. Your above posts reveal your incredible ignorance of what the real Catholic Church teaches.
I challenge you to learn what the real Catholic Church teaches.
Or, you can remain ignorant. It’s up to you.
//I am quite familiar with what Catholic Church teaches//
Gerald,
You’ve already demonstrated that you are not at all familiar with what the Catholic Church teaches. Do you even know how to find the Catechism online? Did you read that link on Salvation Outside the Church yet?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Salvation_Outside_the_Church.asp
Gerald, IF you were familiar with what the Church teaches, you would come in and quit running around out there and possibly “drinking the kool-aid”, to use your own words.
I have a more limited point on Roman/Latin excesses and use of words vis a vis history and church jurisdiction.
Without sounding demeaning, I don’t think the Protestant polemicist(s) get it. I don’t want to be condascending but it is a circular argument and not responsive to the reason to the rules and there seems no logical conclusion.
Moreover, I am not sure if it is a Protestant or Traditionalist Catholic obsession with the kissing of the Koran by the late Pope John Paul II or the No Salvation Outside the Church (although the Protestant on this blog seems to be doing the reverse that this is proof that St. Paul is a liar–which is a far logical stretch or the Church is wrong and contradicts the Bible)
There is a conclusion on all of this that is jumped to. The conclusion does not meet the facts. There is a lack of context and nuance in most of these arguments which makes it rhetoric and polemic.
I am sorry if my post was too long. Please read it if you can. My intentions were only to share some information and a nuanced reaction in certain discussion vis a vis the rules.
🙂 at Smoky Mountain. The disclaimer is that generally I don’t keep score. But Bill’s post gave me a smile, hence the points.
As I think about it, I would say it’s less like points in a tennis match than points awarded, say during figure skating. In a subsequent moment, I might figure out a whole point system. But ‘light’ is essential. My primary goal here is a better understanding of Catholicism and I certainly don’t want to encourage those who are into scoring debate points. But I have to admit to sliding to awarding points when the same old tired statements reappear.
As for John’s law applying to insiders, I think it needs either a fuller definition or maybe an amendment. There have been some fascinating off-topic detours. What distinguishes John is his repeated, blinders on, one track vitriolic attack on the Church and the Pope.
Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, and historians will tell you that there is no evidence that Peter was the first Pope. Greek Orthodox claim Peter was the bishop of Antioch and was only crucified in Rome. Peter was a bishop but was never a Pope. If Peter not the first Pope then the entire record of apostolic succession is a complete lie. If Peter was not the first Pope then you are not part of the church that Jesus founded. Maybe you belong to a cult that worships the same god as Muslims. ( See Cathecism )
Posted by: Gerald | Aug 29, 2007 9:38:11 AM
Do you even know what you’re talking about???
You sure Greek Orthodox believe that???
You’re so screwed up — I don’t even know where to begin!
For one, as mentioned before, even the Orthodox acknowledge that we have the lists of the Bishops of Rome that go all the way back to Peter.
We have a 1st Century testament to this in St. Clement of Rome who in Par 44 of his work called the Epistle to the Corinthians (this is Pope Clement, the 3rd Successor of St. Peter, who is also mentioned in the New Testament, by the way); there, he tells us, “The Apostles knew through perfect foreknowledge that strife would arise amongst the Office of Bishop. Therefore, they made arrangements that other approved men should succeed to their ministry so that after they have died, other approved men could succeed to their ministry.”
There, you have the idea of Apostolic succession; not only in the Scriptures in Rom 10:14, for example, and Acts 1:20, but historically we see St. Clement of Rome talking about it. We see in fact lists of the Bishop of Rome that go all the way back. For example, St. Irenaeus of Lyon –- book 3 chapter 3 (as I believe) in his work called Against Heresies –- there he lists the Bishops of Rome all the way back to Peter; from the Bishop of Rome from the time that he was alive in about 177 AD.
We have also various other lists from different historians like Eusebius of Caesara; we have even St. Augustine; we have others who give us the lists of the Bishops of Rome all the way back to St. Peter.
John’s Law even applies to “insiders”.
If I recall correctly, we once had a discussion about the Inquisition on a blog entry dedicated to meat on Lenten Fridays.
Posted by: Smoky Moutain | Aug 29, 2007 9:44:27 AM
Uhhh, for your information, DJK, the commenter who brought up the whole inquisition topic on the subject thread, is not an “INSIDER”.
Unless, of course, your definition of an Insider is one who holds the Catholic Church as being a corrupt human institution.
…and by the way Gerard, if you already know about Catholic Church teaching, you also know that the Bishop of Rome is the Pope.
(very good Esau :))
Thank you too to Michael!!
Oh, and just to clear things up, by saying very good to Esau, I was referring to his post that was posted at 10:18, I don’t know anything about the one that he posted after that as I wasn’t here then.
Sheesh.
John 6 is to be entirely excluded from this discussion, since it does not refer in a single syllable to the sacrament. For not only was the sacrament not yet instituted, but the whole context plainly shows that Christ is speaking of faith in the Word made flesh, as I have said above. For He says, ” My words are spirit, and they are life,” which shows that He is speaking of a spiritual eating
Gerald,
If he was merely speaking of spiritual eating, then why did his several followers leave him right after he had spoken thus?
60 ¶ (6-61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it?
AND
66 (6-67) After this, many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him.
Also, again, you neglect even St. Paul’s teachings:
1Cor 10:16:
16 The chalice of benediction which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?
and
1Cor 11:29:
29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.
As well as the early church fathers:
St Ignatius in the 1st century was a disciple of St. Peter himself and when he addressed the Gnostics, he even said:
“They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer, because they confess not that the Eucharist and prayer is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”
St. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology to the Emperor Anotoninus in the 2nd century:
“We do not receive these things as common bread and drink; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour was made flesh by the word of God, even so we have been taught that the Eucharist is both the flesh and the blood of the same incarnate Jesus.”
Origen in the 3rd century wrote:
“If thou wilt go up with Christ to celebrate the Passover, He will give to thee that bread of Benediction, His own body, and will vouchsafe to thee His own blood.”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century instructed the Catechumens:
“He Himself having declared, ‘This is My Body’, who shall dare to doubt henceforward? And He having said, ‘This is My Blood’, who shall ever doubt, saying: This is not His blood? He once at Cana turned water into wine, which is akin to blood; and is He underserving of belief when He turned wine into blood?”
St. John Chrysostom preached on the Eucharist:
“If thou wert indeed incorporeal, He would have delivered to thee those same incorporeal gifts without covering. But since the soul is united to the body, He delivers to thee in things perceptible to the senses the things to be apprehended by the understanding. How many nowadays say: ‘Would that they could look upon His (Jesus’) form, His figure, His raiment, His shoes. Lo! Thou Seest Him, touchest Him, eatest Him.'”
St. Augustine in the 5th century addressed the newly-baptized, saying:
“I promised you a discourse wherein I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s table, which sacrament you even now behold, and of which you were last night partakers. You ought to know wat you have recieved. The bread which you see on the altar, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Body of Christ. That chalice, after being sanctified by the word of God, is the Blood of Christ.”
As I mentioned in the past, there are as many as 63 Fathers and eminent ecclesiastical writers from the 1st and 6th centuries, all of whom proclaim The Real Presence of the Holy Eucharist.
Esau,
There is a big difference between a bishop and Pope. Only the Pope is Vicar of Christ. Again my statement is that Peter was a Bishop not a Pope. Study and show yourself approved. Thus the Church of Christ was started in Jerusalem and Antioch. The church in Rome was started by Paul not Peter, read Bible, history and Greek Orthodox.
Apostolic succession is a concept that I agree with. My claim is that the Catholic church is a counterfeit example of apostolic succession.
Esau,
John 6 must be read in context and does not occur during the Last Supper. Again read carefully.
Historians agree that many of sayings of the Church Fathers are Medieval forgeries. The Clementine epistles are regarded by Schaff as a complete forgery. The Catholic church has used the forgeries for centuries to support its position of Papal authority and succession. It is unfortunate when people are deceived into believing such a lie. The Greek Orthodox and Evangelicals have corrected much of the historical revisionism from Rome, however the stubborn refuse to examine the facts.
“There is a big difference between a bishop and Pope.”
Unless one is the Bishop of Rome.
“Historians agree that many of sayings of the Church Fathers are Medieval forgeries.”
I think you mean “a tiny number of my favorite historians agree…”
“Apostolic succession is a concept that I agree with. My claim is that the Catholic church is a counterfeit example of apostolic succession…”
Coffee out my nose on that one! Let me guess: YOUR church carries on the REAL apostolic succession? Hokay…
Care to clue us in on just which Protestant club you belong to?
Historians agree that many of sayings of the Church Fathers are Medieval forgeries. The Clementine epistles are regarded by Schaff as a complete forgery. The Catholic church has used the forgeries for centuries to support its position of Papal authority and succession. It is unfortunate when people are deceived into believing such a lie. The Greek Orthodox and Evangelicals have corrected much of the historical revisionism from Rome, however the stubborn refuse to examine the facts.
Now, I know you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Oxford scholars have corroborated the authenticity of these writings as well.
In fact, the Codex Alexandrinus, a 5th Century gift of the Scriptures, was a gift from the PROTESTANT Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris to King Charles I in 1628 and is in the British Library.
The other Greek witness, a text belonging to the Patriarch of Jerusalem’s library, formerly in Constantinople, was published by the GREEK ORTHODOX SCHOLAR BYRENNIOS in 1875 and the next few decades saw the discovery of of translations in Syriac, Latin and Coptic!
I am hoping that were merely stating what you believed were true instead of DELIBERATELY BEARING FALSE WITNESS on the Church established by Christ!
Go ahead, Gerald.
Try me.
Believe you me, prior to coming into the Church, I researched very, very hard utilizing several materials — Protestant, Catholic and secular.
If you have something GENUINELY authoritative to contribute, feel free to provide this.
However, if you will be providing merely HEARSAY or, worse, LIES, then CEASE and DESIST!
Gerald,
I think you assume a bit too much… You wrote:
Evangelicals, Greek Orthodox, and historians will tell you that there is no evidence that Peter was the first Pope. Greek Orthodox claim Peter was the bishop of Antioch and was only crucified in Rome. Peter was a bishop but was never a Pope. If Peter not the first Pope then the entire record of apostolic succession is a complete lie.
A good scholar will study all angles of the debate and not just drink the Koolaid from one source. Clearly Evangelicals and historians differ with the Catholic interpretation of history.
I’m wondering what “Historians” you refer to, as I think the claim that there is no evidence that Peter was Pope or that Apostolic Succession doesn’t exist would be rather hard to validate in the face of say, a quote from Irenaeus of Lyons such as the following:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.”
-Adversus Haereses, Book III Ch. 3
I forget, did they have Kool-aid back in the second century?
All snarky comments aside, exactly where are your historical sources? If they’re telling you things like that which you posted, then they’re bunk. (Trust me, there are tons more quotes where that first one came from.) Also, you seem to be missing the boat on that whole “The Church is the mystical Body of Christ” thing that St. Paul’s kinda big on. So… if we must put our faith in Christ for our salvation, and we’re told by Scripture that the Church is His Body, ie a part of Jesus (one flesh to extend the marital comparison), theeeeeen: It would seem that our faith in the Church, aka the Body of Christ, is necessary for salvation. Wouldn’t you agree, or is the Church not really the body of Christ?
Also, try not to paint St. Augustine as being against the Eucharist (Christ’s Body and Blood really present in bread and wine). You’ll lose that battle too, as there are plenty of quotes that eradicate that opinion. Finally, I’ve noticed a lot of people come barging in to comment boxes holding to and using sola Scriptura as if it’s a doctrine to be proud of or a firm foundation for faith. Erm… even if you can get around the monumental task of proving it’s biblical (which isn’t possible), all you’re left with in reward is a nice fat logical circle. Why would God make us choke down a logical mistake?
One final thought, as I can see you’ve just made the claim that there was a huge conspiracy in the middle ages. I’d like to meet or read about these historians… Are they the same ones consulted for the writing of “The Da Vinci Code”? In addition, the Greek Orthodox rely on Apostolic Succesion and are VERY different from evangelicals… Just a warning, you’re playing with fire… and we all know where that leads.
Just a few thoughts… God Bless,
Inocencio posted:
“You said JPII on the other thread received the mark of shiva with dung. You were completely refuted on all points. Just accept that you don’t know what you are talking about. It is very obvious to everyone.”
Inocencio, it was YOU who were refuted. You said it was NOT shiva, but Aarti which you said was oil. Ok, so I went and looked up what Aarti was and all HINDU references refer to it as a PAGAN form of reverence for a diety or god which JPII ACCEPTED!
So either way he was participating in a form of pagan worship!
Gerald,
I don’t think most Greek Orthodox would agree with you (or other Orthodox).
They may think the claims are overexagerrated but not that there is a primacy with the successor(s) of Peter. The (or at least some) of the Oriental Christians (non Chalcedon and anti-Orthodox especially Byzantine Empire historically) like Egyptians and Ethiopians believe the primacy is in St. Mark and thus Alexandria (I don’t think the Armenian or Assyrian Oriental Orthodox believe this)
But most Eastern Orthodox (non Oriental) do not believe in a primacy of St. Mark nor the See of the historically great city of Alexandria.
Nor do they even believe in primacy at Constantinope which was developed later for historical reasons and not theological but is practical.
Certainly, there was fraud, the Catholic Church did recognize the forgery of the Donation of Constantine and does not teach that.
Certainly, some Popes, including great ones became too temporal like Innocent III among others or great sinners like Alexander VI.
But even Orthodox Calendars have Roman Popes as Saints and recognize the greatness of these men AND their position.
The mentor to Seraphim Rose, I think John of San Francisco took much time to add Western Saints into the Orthodox Calendar (I think they are Russian Orthodox Outside of Russia but am not sure) that were recognized (at least originally) by the Latin Church.
While there is a variety of opinions in the Eastern Orthodox Church on the Catholic Church and the Bishop of Rome (I think in the US there is the OCA–Orthodox Church in America which was originally many Catholics that left because of Archbishop Ireland, the Antiochean Orthodox Church that has some high profile Protestant converts and many Arab and other Middle East(ern) members, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, the other ethnic Churches like Serbian, Bulgarian etc but the Macedonian Church, for political reasons according to them, is not in union with the other Churches–words like auto-cephalous etc.
While there are disagreements so it is hard to say authoritatively what is taught–Many, many Orthodox theologians and historians recognize:
1. Primacy of Rome and Peter.
2. That the Catholic Church has apostolic succession.
3. The Sacraments are valid.
4. There is much historical BAD, but also much historical good.
5. There is a element of unity in theology etc.
One historian, who converted to Orthodoxy but was a Slovak Lutheran, is renknown Historian Jarislav Pelikan. His histories of Christianity are worth reading and are not Catholic per se.
Jarislav Pelikan is an Eastern Orthodox convert and historian–his opinions while not authoritative are at least instructive of informed Orthodox thought (although some may have been written while he was Lutheran)
Mainstream writings by Kallistos (Timothy) Ware are interesting.
Although, certainly there are very anti-Roman Orthodox Polemics based on emotion (perhaps justified by history) and even hate–so Gerard can certainly post something different with aprobation although it is not necessarily authoritative or mainstream Orthodox.
Even Hierarach Seraphim Rose, who I think has many valid points on a number of issues–was very anti-Roman Catholic I believe to the point where he did not believe that grace existed in the Catholic Church. I have had discussions with at least a half dozen Orthodox prelates who do not believe that from those who believe that grace certainly does exist in the Catholic Church to a more modified teaching that they know where Grace is (eg in the Orthodox Church) but not where it is not (eg God goes where he wills both in Catholic and even Protestant or non Christian Churches as He wills).
There is a lot more ecuminicism in Carpatho Rusyn and Ukrainian Churches now to the point of breaking rules on inter Communion and Sacraments as well as intermarriage and exchange. I have spoken to some Christians living in Syria from Orthodox, Eastern Rite Catholic, Latin Catholic, even Oriental and perhaps quasi Arian–ALL are united because of what is going on in Iraq and the persecutions in the Middle East primarily by radical Islam. They are living together, going to Communion together (in violation of rules no doubt although Catholics are allowed Orthodox communion on death beds and if there is no Catholic Church–not all Orthodox reciprocate but some do)
I don’t want to search and cut and paste or bring out my books. The debate of the Papacy is a deep and long one. We “Roman” Catholics are not without sin or blame especially with historical excess and worse. The Pope is an important and incredible sociological concept even if one does not believe in the Divine mandate as it has been incredible for Independence during times for the Eastern and specifically Orthodox Christians during Islam and Communism of intense persecution and problems than of Caesero Papism. The Caesero Papism idea is wrong and a great flaw in much of historical Orthodoxy. The Papacy has played a positive role (and negative role elswhere no doubt) in East Timor independence, the fall of Communism, the Phillipines etc–because of being separate and apart and above governments.
But theologically more importantly, even with all the faults, it continues to teach Truth and promote unpopular ideas that I believe are from God and most Orthodox and many Protestants would agree upon from abortion to the sanctity of Marriage.
It was posted:
“For one, as mentioned before, even the Orthodox acknowledge that we have the lists of the Bishops of Rome that go all the way back to Peter”.
Well if I am not mistaken, did not Paul VI hand over his papal tiarra and then donned a Bishops Mitre which all popes since have worn, symbolizing they are no longer the Vicar of Christ and now just a Bishop by these actions???
Well if I am not mistaken, did not Paul VI hand over his papal tiarra and then donned a Bishops Mitre which all popes since have worn, symbolizing they are no longer the Vicar of Christ and now just a Bishop by these actions???
Oh, did St. Peter also wear a papal tiarra?
I forgot…
Gerald, just for kicks, can I ask which historians you are referring to when you say this? “Historians agree that many of sayings of the Church Fathers are Medieval forgeries.”
Or did you just copy and paste that from some site and you have no idea which ones they are referring to? If so, may I ask which site you get your info from?
Michael,
Thank you for that perspective!
I really appreciate that kind of info!
It’s folks such as yourselves that make me look forward to visiting this blog!
Is this meant to be remotely persuasive to anyone? Does anyone really need to answer this?
Does anyone reading have any difficulty seeing the speciousness of John’s claims? Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, agnostic, anyone? Raise your hand.
Mr. Kotta’ Mr. Kotta’ Oo Oo Oo
John has difficulty seeing the speciousness of John’s claim…
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Oh Inocencncio, you have a wonderful sense of humor!!! 🙂
John,
You said it that Pope Johh Paul II received the mark of shiva.
You were wrong it was an Aarti.
You said it was done with dung.
You were wrong again and I did not say oil someone else did.
You said it was done by a hindu priestess.
You were wrong again it was an Indian Catholic woman.
I told you it was Jimmy Akin’s documentation and linked to his other website. Jimmy gave the letter from the Vatican explaining the Indian Catholic custom.
I am embarrassed for you, John.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Does anyone reading have any difficulty seeing the speciousness of John’s claims?
SDG, that means I’d have to read John’s posts. Let me try one.
Inocencio, it was YOU who were refuted
No! It is I who will eat you! What? Oh, wrong thread? Never mind.
Mary Kay,
As always thank you for the smile.
You Know Who You Are,
Thank you I have been trying to develop one. I really enjoyed the explanation of your combox name.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries.
The question is not if Evangelicals and Catholics agree. The question is if the Catholic church the ‘Church’ that Jesus built upon Peter? History would show that the Greek Orthodox church has more claim to this title than the Roman Catholic church. The question is the Roman Catholic church is a schismatic church from 1054 AD and the Protestant church is a schismatic church from 1520AD?
Are you Greek Orthodox Gerald?
According to Wikipedia
[Many] denominations vary from simply not accepting the Pope’s claim to authority as legitimate and valid, to believing that the Pope is the Antichrist[11][12] from 1 John 2:18 [5], the Man of Sin from 2 Thessalonians 2:3-12[6][7], and the Beast out of the Earth from Revelation 13:11-18.[8] Conservative Confessional Lutherans hold that the pope is the Antichrist insisting that this article of faith is part of a quia rather than quatenus subscription to the Book of Concord. In 1932, the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS) adopted A Brief Statement of the Doctrinal Position of the Missouri Synod, which a number of Lutheran church bodies now hold.[13] Statement 43, Of the Antichrist:[9]
Maybe the Pope is a type of anti-Christ;, presenting an image of a the false Christ but secretly worshipping the Devil. Remember Catholics believe that Muslim worship the same god as Catholics. Remember Muslims and the anti-Christ deny the ‘TRUE CHRIST’. So the Pope is secretly trying to lead Catholics astray with false doctrine.
Perhaps the Pope gave up the Tiara because he knew his successor would get the mark of Shiva and needed some space. The Pope is now claiming rights over the Hindus? The Pope is also the leader of the Muslims (actually according to Jack Chick and his rather entertaining comics–the Catholic Church invented Islam as a way to hurt real Bible believing Christians and Jews but it backfired–a real good read about how Islam is invented go on the Jack Chick website–don’t know whether to laugh or cry–so try to laugh)
I am not familiar with the Thomas Aquinas defense, and you may well be right.
There were forgeries. There was the Donation of Constantine issue. There were claims made by Popes for specific territory that are not theologically justified. Pope Innocent the III (who did some great things) also called himself Caput Totius Orbo (head of the world or Universe). Pope Julius II (who also gave the world some amazing artisitic accomplishments) would go into battle with a gold suit of armor and a mace. Pope Alexaner VI was a Borgia family member who used simony, had mistresses, children, he or his son and the infamous Banquet of the Chestnuts that was basically an orgy, may have been a pagan and occultist worshipping ancient Egyptian gods Horus and Orisis and Isis.
The brother of the Turkish Sultan lived in St. Peters at the time. Rome was filled with prostitutes, assasins, robbers, gamblers. When he died they would not say a Requiem Mass for him because the priests said it was blaspehmy to say a Mass for the Damned.
There were lies, historical claims, exagerrations, misinterpretations.
Again, take it in context of 1 BILLION members right now and a 2000 year old Church engaged in the World of Romans, Greeks, Mystery Religions, Judaism, Barbrians, Islam, Money, War, Mongols, Greed, Lust, Power, Evil etc.–so some mistakes were made.
The idea of Peter being the Rock (Cephas or Kephas in Aramaic) is justified in the Bible, logically, historically, theologically, and sociologically. It is certainly better than Caesero Papism. Pope Leo the Great meeting Atila at the gates of Rome. Pope Greogory and the beautiful Music (which my New Age friends say is inherently healing). This last Pope John Paul II (the Qur’an kissing, Shiva mark, and Assisi nothwithstanding) helped bring about the end of Communism, peaceful change in the Phillipines, and more freedom for Religion throughout the former Soviet Union and other Communist countries (now there are new problems with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, a multi polar world, secularism, modernity etc–but there will be new problems in 100 years also)
Pope John Paul II was a positive and peaceful force in the world. Pope John Paul II, whatever critisms of Glaudium et Spes, Vatican II, Religious Liberty, Ecumenicism–gave us clear teaching on OBJECTIVE TRUTH especially through Veritas Splendor but his entire Papacy. Protestantism and to a lesser extent Orthodoxy (with much props to Orthodoxy for dogmatic truth being insured through Islam, Communism etc) have thousands of Churches and Doctrines that are a result of a non Catholic worldview and a gnostic or partially gnostic idea of Luther/Calvin et al that they can decide themselves with the Holy Spirit outside the Magisterium, Tradition and the Pope. It is amazing, that even with some horrendous Popes, how consistent the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Popes have been–both criticisms of the Traditionalist right and the Protestant both historically sincere and irrational polemecist. The Popes have been consistent (understanding some nuance, disagreement, what is disagreeable and superficial contradictions)–the theology of the Catholic Church has been amazingly consistent and through the Popes there is an amazing, comprehensive, self justifying, metaphysical and cosmological system with justifications and defenses–which one must admit even if they are not Catholic or do not believe. It is much more consistent and ontologically correct than any Protestant worldview and I would say moreso than the closer yet separated brethren of the Eastern Orthodox and even non Chalcedon Oriental Christians (Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia, Assyria).
The Pope, while divisive to some historically which I recognize and even point out, is an incredibly unifying figure theologically, symbollically and practically. The last Pope’s vist to Mexico was the BIGGEST outdoor rally in the history of the PLANET EARTH!!!!! Millions of People lined the streets. His worldwide visits changed hearts and even changed governments and human history.
The Pope, Bishop of Rome, and whatever historical titles is the Visible Head of the Church (Jesus of course is the Invisible Head).
Objective Truth, the rational of Aristotle and Aquinas and Ratzinger/Benedict (among others)–has been protected by “Peter” and Rome.
Objective, Eternal and Absolute Truth (with much room for nuance and disagreement no doubt) is protected by Apostolic Succession, Tradition, a living teaching Magisterium and THE POPE.
This Objective, Eternal, and Absolute Truth is GOD in the person of JESUS. Jesus established a CHURCH (the UNIVERSAL (read: Catholic) Church with the biggest component being Roman and the physical temporal head being in Rome)
It makes sense. I believe it is TRUE. The Blog format may (or may not) be the way to learn about this.
Gerard–Please read more on this topic and I will read what you have wrote as some of it I am not aware of. I think you are making conclusions that are jumps from the facts. Also some mistatements about the beliefs of Eastern Orthodox theology and eccelesiology.
Gerald,
I’m not exactly sure what you’re getting at here with the Decretals. The Catholic Church agrees that they are forgeries. However, our arguments for the Papacy make use of Patristic texts that predate the Decretals themselves (like Irenaeus for example). More to the point, the Christian community as a whole has determined the exact content of the forgeries and has long ago separated their contents from the authentic witness of the Fathers. In addition, it can be easily shown that the Office of Pope was well established way before the phony letters were even written (9th century), and that many of the aspects of the Papal Office were indeed in place and accepted by the Church as a whole.
If you’d like to argue contrary, then you’ll have quite a lot of historical explaining to do. Heck, how do you get around the likes of Pope Gregory? Claim he was a myth? If the Office is a myth due to forgery, then it certainly wasn’t a forgery in the middle ages. But perhaps I’m not understanding you correctly?
Also, I’m not going to pretend I’m familiar with all the works of Aquinas, and specifically the one you cited in particular, but I think if you provided some sources for these “Factoids” we might be able to get something constructive accomplished.
God Bless,
Not to mention the fact that the Church is still in existance today just as Jesus said it would be because….
No matter how many errors man makes, the Holy Spirit leads and guides HIS Church still and I’m not worried about one little thing that you say Gerard.
(and I loved this Michael: Perhaps the Pope gave up the Tiara because he knew his successor would get the mark of Shiva and needed some space. I almost wet myself.
Now, besides the Wikipedia, can you site any sources for your so called “facts” Gerard??
One last thing Gerard, there is only ONE GOD. the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob. So, any questions?
“Maybe the Pope is a type of anti-Christ… secretly trying to lead Catholics astray with false doctrine.”
And maybe YOU are.
Gosh, who do I believe?
“The question is if the Catholic church the ‘Church’ that Jesus built upon Peter? History would show that the Greek Orthodox church has more claim to this title than the Roman Catholic church.”
First you argue (well, just assert, really) that Peter was never Pope… then you argue that Jesus did build His Church on Peter, but that it’s the Orthodox, not the Catholic Church.
Which is it? Or are you just fond of the taste of red herring?
Just because the Roman Catholic church is still in existence does not prove it to be true. Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism are older does that make them true. Apparently, people blindly accept dogma from the Catholic church without questioning its origin. My claim is that they are not built on the foundation of Peter, but a foundation of false truth.
For centuries the Greek Orthodox did not accept the succession of the Roman Catholics. No Greek Orthodox would claim that the Orthodox and Muslims worship the same God. Even Peter would not make such a claim. Thus the evidence indicates the Roman Catholic church is deceiving its people to think that they worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, when in actuality they are worshipping a false Christ.
The Bible states:
For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many Matthew 24:5
He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. Luke 21:8
For some really GOOD reading, these are all the recent additions to EWTN’s latest document library in case anyone is interested.
http://www.ewtn.com/vlibrary/search2.asp
They also have many of the works of St. Thomas Aquinas listed but..never heard of the “Against the Errors of the Greeks”…not saying it doesn’t exist, just that maybe its one of the false one’s. I’ve never heard of it though, his Summa is enough to keep just about anyone busy for a life time.
Gerard, that was a warning against the likes of people like you. Don’t worry, we won’t be misled.
Gerald,
You’ve provided NO EVIDENCE whatsoever and, in fact, did not even refute any of what had been mentioned.
Also, it’s kinda strange that such early writings of the Church weren’t actually discovered by Catholics but PROTESTANT and GREEK ORTHODOX who even went so far as to authenticate the Writings and corroborate their findings!
Doesn’t it even strike you as strange that the very ones who should be AGAINST the Catholic Church actually provided evidence FOR the Catholic?
You’ve provided nothing to convince anybody except a vile prejudice that seeks to distort the TRUTHS of Christ’s Teachings!
Also, this statement makes me laugh:
“For centuries the Greek Orthodox did not accept the succession of the Roman Catholics.”
I wonder what they were agreeing to before 1054 then???
Gerald, I’m disappointed. I had hoped that you would have considered the possibility that you really don’t know what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and would attempt to find out the facts, so that you would atleast know what you were criticizing.
Esau,
The fact is that the Roman Catholic church has revised their list of Popes on several occasions.
Depending upon which source one uses, we are informed that John Paul II is the 268th successor to Peter. Or the 269th. Or the 267th. Or the 265th. Or the 262nd. Or the 266th. After looking at the variety of numbers in this admittedly small sample of sources, one comes away with the thought that even when it comes to identifying her leaders, the Catholic Church has shown herself to be a sower of confusion and misinformation. Perhaps looking at the sources for some of these figures will help us work our way through to a reliable figure for the total number of popes claimed by Rome.
The Bible says the Paul found the church in Rome and the Linus was his direct successor. Thus the Catholic Church has lied about its origin. Why have they lied? Maybe because they are an anti-Church to deceive many!
It’s all fun and games until somebody cites their source.
What are your sources, Gerald? No one can argue effectively with you (and no one will believe you) unless you state where you get your “facts” from.
George Washington was the 34th King of France.
See? I can write facts too! Show your work, people!
“The Vatican refers to Pope John Paul II as the 264th pope. The
official list is based on the definitive study of Popes, completed
in 1947 by Msgr. Angelo Mercato, Director of the Vatican Archives. The
Vatican accepted and published his findings as the official list.
This list and the Popes since then add up to 264.”
http://www.popechart.com/FAQ.htm#count
I am fairly “liberal” in terms of interpreting “No Salvation outside the walls of the Church” as well as an approach to ecumenicism specifically dealing with other Christian Churches that have Apostolic Succession, Bishops, Priests, Sacraments, and the Real Presence of the Eucharist eg the Orthodox and Oriental Churches. I pray for the unity of all Christians. In terms of theology, history and church structure–these Churches are the most Catholic and are actual “Churches” in the technical sense as recently re-asserted by Pope Benedict XVI in his much misunderstood statements on absolute truth and the nature of Churches.
“However, without denigrating the greatness of the Greek “Tradition”/or “tradition”– a regional ethnic Church, however correct and part of the “Catholic” Church as they define it or the “Roman” Catholic Church defines it (as they believe there is 1 Church and repeat that in the Nicene Creed and it is not an ethnic Church)
Even Orthodox themselves and especially converts (of which there are high profile Evangelical converts like Peter Gilquist, Franky Schaeffer Jr among others and many Anglicans) talk about the ethnocentric flaw if not sometimes heresy.
A mark of the Church is or should be UNIVERSAL.
No Church is more heterogenous, diverse, and multi-cultural as the Catholic Church.
It is not merely a “Roman” Church. I do not believe Christ only wanted to save Greeks (as great as they are) or any one ethnic group or culture or even group. The Catholic Church is the most open to all peoples and that is evident.
The Catholic Church also, and even the great author Dostoevski recognized and criticized this, as there is a more monastic and introspective tradition–that the Catholic Church was a huge positive in social services which is why there were large “Uniate” communities as well as Latin Rite Germans and Polish in Russian and the Ukraine etc. Food, job training education.
Another sign to me, besides being Universal is that the Catholic Church is such a great provider of education, orphanages, colleges, hospitals (even with all the flaws). When Japan was on the verge of becoming Christian (Catholic) and there were 300,000 Catholics maybe more in a country than of estimated 3 million including daimos etc–they started Social Services and helping others that was not previously present. There was an estimate in predominantly Hindu India but certainly diverse (Muslim, Sikh, Jain, Buddhist, and many different sects) that HALF of the educational institutions were/are Catholic (Latin Rite).
To me this is fruit and by your fruit you will no them.
While I love Orthodox Liturgy and much of their beautiful praxis–it is overly ethnic in most cases and I don’t think the Greek Orthodox Church has a universal claim over Christianity.
Also, the idea that the Greeks did not ever recognize Papal Sucession is absurd that while there were problems since the 800s and the actual schism in 1054 there was recognition.
There was a Byzantine request for help with Islam since before Charlemange. Byzantine Emporers who swore allegiance to the Pope including some from the Paleogious line.
At the time of the schism many Greeks and “Latins” thought it was bad and unnecessary.
The Filoloque notwithstanding, the schism seems to be more historical/political and even misunderstanding than truly theological.
Gerard, I think you do not understand the Schism or the context. There certainly was unity in Christendom to an extent albeit in an East-West context.
To further prove that point. Many Southern regions of Italy, not far from Rome, and in union with Rome–spoke Greek in liturgy and their venacular up until the 13th Century (and yes there was some unfortunate forced Latinization and cultural “imperialism” of “Romans” and Northern Italians). Sicily, Calabria and other areas had a Greek Divine Liturgy, and Greek language and customs in villages. They were not far from Rome when the doctrine of the Papacy was being “developed” and did not view the world as Gerard sees it.
There are still CATHOLIC–in union with Rome–Albanian/Greek/Italo rite present today (although not many)
“No Greek Orthodox would claim that the Orthodox and Muslims worship the same God” and Gerard continues that Peter did not teach that
Well…. different topic BUT
1. Islam came after Peter
1st Century Peter
6th Century Islam
So don’t think that has anything to do
As I understand the qoute and point–If Pope John Paul II kissed the Qur’an and said anything positive than he is teaching a different God and different Christ. I am very critical of Islam but don’t want to get into that here.
But just because the Pope or any other leader recognizes that God is God for everyone and that Islam teaches a 1 God principle (Monotheism) with at least some of the attributes of God that the Catholic Church teach (and we believe to be objectively true) than that does not mean that the Catholic Church teaches a false God or Christ.
Moreover, the Greek Orthodox religion may not be as anti-Islamic in theology as you think. There are a number of books on World Wisdom (I think website) comparing Sufism to the Jesus Prayer and the Heychastic movements influence back and forth with Islam. Timothy “Kallistos” Ware (very mainstream and with some authority) has written positively on this topic. So, Gerard, you are wrong MANY Greek Orthodox claim that Muslims worship the same God.
Some arguments that indicate Muslims worship the same God (I almost hesitate as it is a straw man):
1. Muslims recognize Monotheism, the Oneness of God as their main principle. Thus they are not polytheists nor pantheists nor pagans (there may be some pantheism among some Sufi sects or the syncreticism of some Hindu/Muslim thinking in India or the heretical/pseudo/quasi Islamic religions that are more gnostic or Babylonian like Druze or Alowites among others).
2. Jews actually view Muslims as more theologically accurate than Christians.
Search different websites like askmoses.com
or chabad.org. Ask a Jewish Rabbi.
As like Muslims, Jews believe, a priori, that the concepts of the Trinity and the Incarnation are impossible and even inherently polytheistic and/or blashemous.
3. The Muslims have hundreds (101?) of attributes and names for God that are very eloquent, beautiful, accurate, and agreeing with Christian theology. Most merciful. All Powerful. etc. Pope John Paul II even comments on the names and attributes in one of the encyclicals but also points out there is not the same sense of Redemption and other flaws.
These names to describe God do seem to describe God.
4. Islam does have roots, even if flawed, in Judaism and Christianity (including Oriental Ethiopian/Abbysinian Christianity) even if it also has pagan roots of the tribal Arabians.
It certainly borrows heavily on Christian, Jewish, and probably Zoastrian cosmology and belief.
5. Islam teaches that Jesus actually comes again at the end of the World. The End Times ideas are very similiar. Ressurrection of the Body. 2nd Coming of Christ. Final Judgement with Jesus as Judge.
6. There are also many differences and problems.
But God is God regardless of how we view him.
The problems are
A. Trinity
B. Incarnation
C. Divinity of Christ subsumed in A and B
D. I can’t go into it here but some Muslims view (as does some view Ockham and Scotus as well as Calvin–and the whole issue of Pope Benedict XVI at Regensburg with the dialogue of the Persian and Emporer Palogeious) of God and the Will of God compared to reason and “limits” on God.
This also goes to the “kisme” concept and predestination. Real deep stuff and stuff I didn’t get on the first go around of the Benedict XVI controversy.
but basically the nature of God.
Islam claims genetic/historical and theological roots in Abraham–so it is a shared (even if one side is wrong) Abrahamic covenant with the one God (albeit one side says Isaac and the other Ishmael). Christians don’t have the genetic/racial claim (although Jews in mystical Judaism consider the Catholic world Esau at least the spiritual children of Esau check out Rabbi Simon Jacobsons site and the Gal Enai site in Israel) but a spiritual/theological claim to Abraham and his fatherhood. While some Middle Eastern Christians (and not all are Arabs) use different words for God most of the roots of the Arabic speakers use some form of Allah or Allah itself whether it is Ballah, Allah, Alla etc.
(It should be pointed out with the Novus Ordo that there is Turkish word for God although mostly the Arabic Allah, as well as separate Geez script different from Arabic for Egyptian, and Aramaic for Assyrians and Chaldeans which was the Jewish venacular language borrowed from Babylon or even Hebrew in Israel and Hebrew Catholics) I have personally been at Orthodox Divine Liturgy in Arabic and they use Allah although some Melkite Catholics in the US do use a different word for God. The word Allah is the translated word for God and is used by Arab Christians. (the Turkic and Persian speakers have different linguistic roots but still many borrowed words and for Turkish more recently a Roman script and for Persians a slightly modified Arab script) So the word Allah does mean God. It is not a moon God or Demon although some may interpret as such. If you took a class from any mainstream or “authoritative” Muslim teacher(s) the description and understanding of God would be substantively similiar to that of Orthodox Jews or Christians absent (if you could theoretically subtract) the Trinity and Incarnation and perhaps less importantly but nonetheless intrinisic emphasis on redemption and love (and not just justice and righteous anger)
The bottom line being that Gerard is wrong that Greek Orthodox teach that the God of Islam is different (or so different as to be completely false) and that the Catholic Church is proven wrong because of some statements by a Pope or the kissing of the Qur’an by the past Pope. By the way, the concept of Papal infallibility is very narrow, and even if (God forbid) the Pope apostosized and became Muslim–is that he could not teach error. Even if the Pope wrongfully kissed the Qur’an (eg he definitely knew, it was not cultural formality or sign of respect)–he did not make a teaching of doma or morals ex cathedra nor did the Magisterium make a statement or reaffirm (or change) a teaching.
(By the way — I got my fact about George Washington from the remarkable book, “1,948 Fun Facts that Just Aren’t That True” by J. Imi Nycricket)
This site does not like long email posts, so I have refrained from sighting sources. Sighting sources would not help those who are closed to the truth. The truth is available for those who diligently search. So I will leave it to the reader to find my sources.
“Sighting sources would not help those who are closed to the truth. The truth is available for those who diligently search.”
Would that you would. Please consider leaving the path of willful ignorance.
Well Gerard, its a pity that you can’t own up to the facts. Even though I am not fond of long posts, I just read the entire one that Michael posted and I can tell you it rings of truth.
However, when I read your, even short posts, I only get that ackkkk sound in the very heart of my being that tells me there is no truth in what Gerard is saying.
You also seem to have missed the point, we already have Jesus, He, Himself, not just the Word of God as in the Bible but He, Himself, we have no further need to search, He already found us!!
Gerald,
Unlike you who has not even provided one shred of convincing evidence, I have offered the following:
“In fact, the Codex Alexandrinus, a 5th Century gift of the Scriptures, was a gift from the PROTESTANT Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris to King Charles I in 1628 and is in the British Library.
The other Greek witness, a text belonging to the Patriarch of Jerusalem’s library, formerly in Constantinople, was published by the GREEK ORTHODOX SCHOLAR BYRENNIOS in 1875 and the next few decades saw the discovery of of translations in Syriac, Latin and Coptic!”
Anybody can look up the GREEK ORTHODOX Byrennios and the PROTESTANT Patriarch of Constantinople Cyril Lucaris to confirm these statements.
There is even Eusebius as well as Augustine, who carry such lists.
W
hat have you besides your vicious lie:
“The Catholic Church is a front for Satan”??
Let me give you a further list of false teaching from your previous Pope. Let the reader determine if the Catholic church is a front for Satan. The Vicar of Christ, Pope John Paul II had some very questionable sayings. No Orthodox or Protestant leader would say these things. Even Luther and other Catholics claimed that the anti-Christ would come from the Catholic church. So here is a link to some great quotes.
http://www.truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm
Don’t you love how the Vicars of Christ contradict each other. A house divided and confused can’t be from God.
I am sorry for too long posts. Also, I certainly don’t want to intentionally violate any rules.
I may be wrong on some things. But I also think I have some information and analysis to share.
I think Gerald is off base and hope he takes time to read my posts.
I hope my posts are helpful to anyone.
Thank you for allowing me to post.
Let us also remember not to just debate history or theology but to pray in the Name of Jesus for each other and the whole world.
Every Christian knows that false church worships false God. So using a simple syllogism:
1. Muslims worship false god.
2. Muslims and Catholic worship same God ( Cathecism)
Conclusion:
3. Catholics worship false god.
Gerard,
Glad to see you finally admitting that John Paul II was the Vicar of Christ, now…
Why don’t you go to some site’s like this one instead of that one and learn the truth much better, ok?
http://www.catholic.com
http://www.vatican.va
http://www.ewtn.com I have more, but they really ought to keep you busy for awhile.
Gerald:
Are you Orthodox or Protestant? They are very different, you know.
Hi Gerald,
I’m still having trouble understanding where you’re coming from, so I’m asking for your help. I think part of the problem is that you seem intent on posting accusations against the Church without really defending them, and then just waving your hand at arguments to the contrary.
So let me see if I get this straight: The Roman Catholic Church is wrong because Protestantism (emphasis on Evangelical), the Greek Orthodox and various un-named and un-cited “historians” disagree with her about the Papacy. Thus we rightfully ask the question: Why does it matter what they think is right? Where’s their proof?
To that extent, you answer: “Well you see, the Papacy (and the Church) is false because a) Peter was never in Rome, B) there were some sketchy documents regarding the Papacy in the 9th century, C) Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God, therefore it naturally follows that the Pope is a type of the anti-Christ and finally D) because Wikipedia says that a whole bunch of Protestants disagree with Rome.”
Clearly you have less than an airtight argument. A) is debunked by a simple history check (other than whatever sources you might currently be using. Try reasoning with the Irenaeus blurb from above. B) Has nothing to do with the actual existence of the Office of the Pope, as the Pope existed long before the Decretals. This can also be done with a simple history check. (If you need resources, just say so and we can point you in the right direction) C) has been discussed at length by Michael above, and D) is just plain obvious as a logical fallacy.
Also, in response to your most recent post, where exactly does the Bible say that Linus directly succeeded Paul in Rome. (Pre-emptive post as well, the Papacy is descendant from the See (Seat) of Peter, not Paul… So it could only be filled after Peter’s death)
And in regard for the numbering of Popes, I assume the discrepancy is due to the Anti-Popes, and whether or not you count them as legit. As always though, it would help to have sources…
Now, would you be so kind as to interact with my previous posts as well as those made by others and either refute the points we made or concede defeat?
God Bless,
Apostolic Succession
a. The appeal to apostolic succession did not appear before
A.D. 170-200 – Elwell Evangelical Dictionary
b. All early succession lists were compiled late in the second
century – ibid.
c. It was developed as a means to counter Gnostic and other
heresies
d. It became a convenient way to assert validity and authority,
taking precedent over appealing to the Word of God
Today, different churches use their “succession lists” to prove their claim to be the true church; which one are we to believe?
What does it matter if Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, or Montanist?
As an addendum to the above, I don’t think the True Catholic Church counts as a source… they’re a bit batty.
And also, if the Church is wrong and the Mother of all lies, why are you believing what you read in the Catechism? I don’t get it… you seem to suggest that the major points of the Catechism are false, but for some reason it becomes trustworthy and true when it supports your flawed “syllogism”? Which is it?
Before A.D. 170:
Acts 1:20 – let another take his office
Acts 1:25-26 – Matthias takes Judas’ apostolic ministry
Gerald, if you were brave enough to reveal your religion, we could avoid wasting time arguing over points of agreement.
Gerald, with all due respect–I am still trying to understand:
1. False religion worships false God?
2. Catholics and Muslims worship the same God?
3. Thus Catholics worship a false God?
Some problems:
1. You start out saying that Catholics are false.
2. The Catholic Catechism may (although please cite) that Muslims worship the same God (Allah in Arabic but the Catechism definitely does NOT teach that we believe the exact same things about Allah that Muslims do–the Trinity and Incarnation come to mind.
3. If there are some similiarities between the Islamic and Catholic conception of God (at least God the Father) that does not mean that Catholicism is a false religion. That is not logical. That does not follow. It is not a to b to c nor 1 + 1= 2. It is not logical. Period.
I posted above more on this but don’t want to repeat or overdue.
Gerald, you are not logical on this. Please pray for me and I will pray for you. May our hearts all be open to the Truth. I strongly believe that the Catholic Church is and has the Truth–I would love to convince you of that and have you feel that beauty. Words alone cannot convince–I may be able to help but it ulitimately God who converts. Words alone again are not–like your seemed beloved Orthodox (or Eastern Rite) go gaze upon an icon or pray or listen to Coptic chant and ask God for Truth.
There is much beauty and Truth in the Catholic Church. The logic is there–be prepared to listen and be open.
Please pray for me.
Gerald:
It matters because you re-hash all the usual Protestant bigot nonsense, such as the pope being the anti-christ, yet you say that the Orthodox Church can claim to be the church that Christ founded.
if you are a Protestant, this would be a very strange view to hold seeing that, apart from a belief in the Trinity, Protestantism and Orthodoxy have nothing in common. Oh, apart, that is, from a rejection of papal authority. Perhaps that’s the rub.
Today, different churches use their “succession lists” to prove their claim to be the true church; which one are we to believe?
Well, gee, you have churches opening left and right in this century and the last, just like chains of Starbucks.
Which one would you trust?
The one that just started? Those started by the reformers in the 16th Century?
Or how about the one that can trace their history all the way back to the very beginning?
Please research Ecclesiastical history first.
You’ve done nothing so far but flaunt your prejudice.
If you simply read and research first, perhaps then you could provide something of substance.
Mary,
I happen to be Russian Orthodox. The Protestants have some good points in exposing some of the questionable teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
Gerald: once again, you have proven that you didn’t read Jimmy’s original post, and don’t have a clue as to what the Catholic Church(of which the Roman Catholic Church is one of 23 Churches) actually teaches. Try educating yourself and leave the path of willful ignorance.
Posted by Gerald:
I will leave it to the reader to find my sources.
Wow. Just wow. Gerald has lost all credibility with that statement.
Again, why should a trust the Catholic Church when it is the source of the Crusades, supported persecution of Jews, used Political interests to further its causes.
The Roman Catholic Church is a man made institution that is a borg like organization that subsumed true Christian expressions throughout most of its history. It was more interested in Romanizing than Evangelizing!
Again, provide something of substance (i.e., corroborarting evidence) vs. spouting out such viscious claims as “The Church is a front for Satan” or “The Church is the Source of All Evil”.
Who’s asking you to trust the Church? I’m asking you to learn what the Catholic Church, as opposed to the straw-man church you think is the Catholic Church, actually teaches. Stop being willfully ignorant.
Gerald’s throwing out a lot of silliness here, but he got one thing right: St. Thomas’ Contra errores Graecorum is a commentary on a collection of texts that include a considerable amount of lost, mistranslated, or spurious material.
My father use to say that every once in awhile, even a blind squirrel finds a nut.
1. The Catholics today speak of the Pope as vicar, taking the place of God (Christ Himself is God, Matt. 1:23; John 1:1), yet there is only one passage in the entire Bible which speaks of a man doing such and it calls him “the man of sin.”
2. Catholic officials always use the word “visible” no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matt. 28:18;).
3. Catholics often use the expression, “One fold and one shepherd” to sustain the doctrine of the papacy. (See Catholic Catechism For Adults, p. 59, q. 3). They teach that the “one shepherd” is the Pope and the “one fold” represents the Catholic Church. Hear what Jesus said about it:
“I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep…I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me, even as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for my sheep. And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John 10:11, 14-16).
He isn’t reading a blessed thing anyone posts. I’m done.
The fact is that most Catholics believe what the Catholic teach because they love to use the dogma, Rome said so, thus it must be true. This is the same tactic every cult likes to use. I have investigated the evidence and have discovered many lies and twisting of scripture. The Protestants and Orthodox are correct that the Catholic church has done much to hinder the spread of the gospel. The truth is that Peter was only a bishop never a vicar. The Eastern Church never believed in a vicar. The Vicar is another word for anti-Christ. So continue to quote from the Cathecism and worship the same god as Muslims. John Paul II even said that Buddhism is a great religion( see link 101 heretical sayings of Pope John Paul, which is written by a Catholic). This shows that he is an apostate New Age promoter of a one-world Satanic religion.
However the ignorant Catholics fail to see this point because they keep suckling at the teat of Rome.
Bill 912,
You are not reading anything I am saying. You love to use the classic tactic of saying I am using a strawman. Is that how weak you Catholics are?
Gerard, He is the Vicar of Christ,
Jesus gave him the keys to the kingdom and left him here in charge on earth, he is the visible head of JESUS’ visible Church, we don’t think or believe that the Pope is Jesus HIMSELF.
We are the Church Militant, purgatory is the Church Suffering and Heaven is the Church Triumphant. We know Jesus is the Head and we are the Body of Christ. Remember when Jesus asked, “do you love me?,,,feed my sheep”? He was talking to those that He left in charge to do this!
….one final thought, in this verse, very interesting you should post this…
…And other sheep I have that are not of this fold. Them also I must bring and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.” (John 10:11, 14-16). Read that verse over and over again. Who are those others that He must bring to the fold to hear His voice? (so that there would be ONE fold, ONE Shepherd.)
Orthodox, Evangelicals, and scholars find it pathetic that the best argument for defending that Peter is the head of the church by using Matthew 16:18. Catholic Answers( http://www.catholic.com) uses the argument that one must first translate the Greek into Aramaic. This is laughable and intellectual fraud. That is like saying I need to translate Shakespeare into Latin to get the true meaning of it. Catholics have built strawman arguments for centuries to support their false idea of a true Church.
Fortunately Evangelicals and the Orthodox ignore the strawmen created by Catholics.
Jesus is the good shepherd not the Catholic church. Read your Bible! John 10:11, 14-16)
Please read this post from the New Liturgical Reform website of Shawn Tribe (I do not know him but like the website and you can fact check for accuracy) especially considering you are Russian Orthodox:
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Russian Orthodox Patriarch, Alexy II Praises Letter on 1962 Missal
posted by Shawn Tribe
ROME, AUG. 29, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI’s move to allow for wider celebration of the Roman Missal of 1962 has received a positive reaction from the Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow.
“The recovery and valuing of the ancient liturgical tradition is a fact that we greet positively,” Alexy II told the Italian daily Il Giornale.
Benedict XVI’s apostolic letter “Summorum Pontificum,” published in July, explains new norms allowing for the use of the 1962 missal as an extraordinary form of the liturgical celebration.
“We hold very strongly to tradition,” he continued. “Without the faithful guardianship of liturgical tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church would not have been able to resist the period of persecution.”
When asked about the relationship between Rome and Moscow, the patriarch said: “It seems to me that Benedict XVI has repeated many times that he desires to work in favor of dialogue and collaboration with the Orthodox Churches. And this is positive.”
Regarding a possible meeting between Alexy II and Benedict XVI, the patriarch said it must be well-prepared, and “be an encounter that truly helps to consolidate relations between our two Churches.”
DID YOU KNOW THAT SOME RUSSIAN ORTHODOX DID NOT BELIEVE THEY WERE PART OF THE SCHISM??????
DID YOU KNOW THAT SOME RUSSIAN MYSTICAL WRITERS BELIEVED IN UNITY WITH ROME AND ALL CHRISTIAN CHURCHES???? (Not Protestant Christian as in Latin and Orthodox)
HAVE YOU READ ANY SOLZEHNITISM OR DOSTOEVSKI (Albeit some very critical) ON ROMAN CATHOLICISM–it is NOT in KEEPING with your opinions.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR RUSSIAN “GREEK” CATHOLIC BRETHREN OR THE LARGER “UNIATE” CATHOLIC UKRAINIAN COMMUNITIES?
DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE ECUMENICAL LITURGY AND MUSIC OF EASTERN RITE UKRAINIAN CATHOLIC ROMAN HURKO?
http://www.romanhurko.com
I have read Hiermonk Seraphim Rose–have you really read Thomas Aquinas or you merely qouting from a secondary or later source?
Have you read the theology of Hans Urs von Balthasar? Read the website of the Octopholobist who is Orthodox and some of the books he has read or his views of Catholicism.
Have you read Orthodox convert and great historian Jarislave Pelikan? his book on Mary?
his commentaries on the Catholic Church? history? theology–like Balthasar?
the schism?
I don’t think you are listening here nor are very well informed–I don’t mean that to insult.
There are many beautiful things about the Russian Orthodox Church (and many things I could criticize which I won’t start here.
I think you are minsinformed about what your Church actually teaches.
Also, read some your bishop of Vienna Hilaryon–very interesting reads and very different from you I think.
Please pray for Truth and for Christian Unity.
I pray that the Bishops of Moscow and Constantinople will pray in Unity with the Bishop of Rome (yes with him in primacy as Pope)–but it is not us but perhpas the Theotokos who can perform that miracle.
I understand quite well that my Russian brethren are warming up to the Catholic Church. However, as a westerner you are quite naive. Russians will be cordial to both Catholics and Protestants, because we have much in common, however that does not mean we accept you as non-schismatics.
Gerald, you are a liar.
Read Seraphim Rose, I think Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia and considered a saint by many in Orthodoxy.
Evangelical Protestantism is much much farther away culturally, ontologically and philosophically from Russian Orthodoxy than is Catholicism. (No doubt Rose is very critical of Catholicism)
Catholicism is much closer on every respect.
I am willing to admit many temporal flaws and historical wrongs of Catholicism–are you willing to introspectively look at the Russian Orthodox Church–excesses, greed, violence, selling out during communism, Caesero Papism, ethno-centrism (I don’t say that with glee or a sense of tit for tat)
There are also many great things like Liturgy and Icons and Monastic Tradition (like Valaam) and a reception and distribution of Faith and much moral Truth. The Russian Tradition can be very beautiful and inspiring including literature etc. But you seem prone to polemics and historical innaccuracy and logical error.
Please look deeper.
Read Rose at least vis a vis Evangelical Protestantism.
I am not promoting the Protestant position either. They are later schismatics. This is a Catholic site so I will address Catholic schismatics.
I am simply stating that the Catholic church has forged its history of succession and thus does not represent the true church. Peter did not start the church in Rome and thus all claims of Catholic Authority are null and void. Only a Satanic institution would have to support its claims by fraudulent history.
History proves that the Catholic Church persecuted Jews, Gentiles, Evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, South American aborigines, Africans, etc. This is the hallmark of the church of Satan not of Christ. The evidence speaks for itself.
Gerard, I do read the Bible, I didn’t say that anyone other than Jeusus was the Good Shepherd, I asked you, WHO are the others that HE (Jesus) will bring to HIS (Jesus’) fold to hear HIS (Jesus’) voice?? So that they all may be ONE???
My name is Gerald not Gerard, thus I question your ability to read the Bible!
Oh goodness, do you know how many typo’s you’ve made today? Shall we go back and count them all?
Just answer the question please.
Jesus is the Good Shepherd. The fold refers to the remnant church which is the Orthodox and other Christians. The fullness resides in the Orthodox church.
The vast majority of Catholics are schismatics who are in serious danger of HELL!
Gerald, to be in schism–we must have been part of the True Church at one time–or we could of not been in schism.
So tell us how we can return and heal the schism.
I am assuming you are talking about the “Great” Schism of 1054.
We are all in danger of Hell–so let’s all try to help each other get to Heaven.
I know from reading this thread that reasoning with Gerald would be fruitless, but I do want to point out for anyone else reading this that the Catholic Church’s claim that Peter was the prime apostle does not have anything to do with who started the Church at Rome. Jesus gave Peter the Keys. He did not give anyone else the Keys. Thus Peter was the visible head of the Church wherever he went: Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome. His successors have traditionally pastored the Church from the place where he met his end, but could do so from another place if need be (Avignon for instance).
Gerald, you wrote in your first post:
“Since the Bible and Catholicism clearly disagree, here are some questions you must answer:”
Despite your seriously flawed grasp of history, the Catholic Church recognized 27 books as inspired, and placed in Her NT canon within the first 4 centuries after Christ’s Ascension into heaven. You will, of course, disagree about WHEN She did this, but the point is that She put them in HER bible. This makes your assertion that “…the Bible and Catholicism disagree…” very silly.
Obviously, you believe that the Catholic Church, despite having the same 27 NT books as the Orthodox and Protestants, simply has never read them, which might explain why She just doesn’t “agree” with the Bible (according to YOUR interpretation).
Or, maybe you believe that we Catholics are so stupid that the wily, evil Church, who knows perfectly well what the Bible says, deliberately deceives us – an easy task since we are so stupid, and can’t read.
If I am wrong here, please correct me, but it sounds to me like your notion that the Catholic Church and the Bible disagree can not be because YOU are misinterpreting both the Bible, and what the Catholic Church teaches, but can only be the result of some satanic plot by the Church to pull the wool over us Ignorant Catholics’ eyes.
With all due respect, I think you’re the one being deceived.
In Christ,
Theresa
Theresa,
Westerners falsely think the church began in Rome. No the church began in Jerusalem and then Antioch. Most of the church was Eastern for the first 450 years. Therefore the true church was Orthodox and was able to define the correct books of the New Testament. Remember the NT was written in Greek not Latin. Beginning around 600 the Romanization of the true church began. This finally lead to the schism in 1054. The Romanization had to be removed lest it destroy the true Church.
The keys where first given to Peter, but they were given to the Patriarchs in Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Constantinople, and Alexandria. There was never any intent that all power given to Peter. These Patriarchs were all equal and all had the keys.
Rome has tried to steal the keys, by claiming Peter was a Pope. Peter was in Antioch not in Rome. Paul was in Rome and started the church their. Linus was a disciple of Paul( read Romans) and thus his successor.
We however, are NOT the Romans who were persecuting the Christians.
Now read your Bible, Jesus only gave the keys to Peter. Peter was in all those places you mentioned and in Rome. We are the first Christians that got persecuted! Peter is of the Eastern Rite, the world was only Eastern then.
I have to get off of here for the night. Have a good evening. I’ll keep you in my prayers, keep us in yours.
It is quite simple if Peter is not the first Pope, then your apostolic succession is a big lie. Consequently, your sacraments are null and void. Your baptisms, confirmations, communions are also null and void. Therefore I would not blindly believe what Rome says. Remember Pope John Paul said Islam and Buddhism are great religions. Satan is the one that believes all religions are one. Jesus said, I am the way the truth and the life- not Islam or Buddhism. So please remove your blinders.
Who do you trust. The Roman Catholics who claim to have been the victim of two schisms, viz. Eastern Orthodox 1054, Protestant 1520. Or do you trust the Eastern Orthodox who have only one schism, viz Roman Catholic 1054. I rather put my trust in the Eastern Orthodox.
Eastern Orthodox do not have the scandals that plagued the Papacy for 1000 years. Pornacracy, Anti-Popes, purchasing of the Papal chair, illegitimate children, murders, poisonings,etc. The evidence of the Satanic church is self-evident for all those who open their eyes. May God help you!
Catholic Answers( http://www.catholic.com) uses the argument that one must first translate the Greek into Aramaic. This is laughable and intellectual fraud. That is like saying I need to translate Shakespeare into Latin to get the true meaning of it.
What! Shakespeare wrote in Latin! You seem to have discovered a great secret here!
Jesus spoke in Aramaic. He called him “Cephas” and sometimes this is translated into Greek in the Bible and sometimes it is just transliterated. You can not hope to understand the passages without knowing that.
Gerald:
It’s past my bedtime, and I’m not going to continue to debate with you, who are obviously not here to dialogue.
I will say only this:
First, you have missed my original point entirely. The point is not whether you believe “the true church was Orthodox and was able to define the correct books of the New Testament,” or even WHO defined the correct books of the NT. The point which you have missed is that it is just silly to assert that the Catholic Church, which has 27 books in Her NT canon, disagrees with Her own canon! If the Catholic Church wanted to invent doctrines that contradict the Bible, then She would have just left those contradictory books out of Her canon, and added books that supported Her false doctrines.
Second, Christ founded a Church. There is only ONE TRUE Church. Satan knows which Church is the True Church, and that is the Church he is going to attack and attempt to destroy. So, the fact that “Eastern Orthodox do not have the scandals that plagued the Papacy” only proves that it is not Eastern Orthodoxy that Satan is concentrating his best efforst to destroy. The Catholic Church is, like Her Divine Founder, is both human and Divine. That She is made up of sinful humans is no surprise, and so it is no surprise that satan would tempt strongly her leaders, in order to GIVE scandal and cause the loss of souls.
It is sad, but no surprise. But we Catholics trust in the promise our Lord made, that His Church would not succumb to the gates of hell. And in that promise it is strongly implied that the gates of hell would certainly TRY to prevail over Her.
So, your attempt to sway an educated Catholic by pointing out the human flaws of some of our Catholic leaders over our 2,000 year history is rather boring. We already know that satan is doing his best to destroy our Church, and we know that in the end, it is our Church that will prevail, as Christ promised.
That satan isn’t bothering too much to bring down other Christian bodies is no surprise to us.
And, while the scandals that plague us are very damaging to the souls of millions, it is well to point out that for every scoundrel, there have been hundreds of Saints. That is a fact you seem to forget.
Theresa
Gerald,
I’ll make this brief, as it’s getting late and I need sleep. In truth, I don’t know where to begin to address your claims because of several factors. First, you don’t think logically. Really, like it naturally follows that because Linus was in the Bible as a disciple, he must be Paul’s successor in Rome… Hint: Paul had a LOT of students. (And for the record, Linus isn’t in Romans, he’s in 2 Timothy 4:21)
Second, as I scan the above posts, I find that numerous people have been MORE than charitable with you and attempted to explain what Catholic teaching actually is. You have ignored this repeatedly in favor of your own interpretation of what we actually believe. To be blunt, you arrogantly assume that you know Catholicism better than each and every Catholic who reads this blog. Thanks. Efforts to reason with you are met with more boilerplate and vitriol than I’ve seen in a long time.
Third, you refuse to cite sources for the inane historical fantasies you concoct. You’ve made more than a metric ton of accusations that are purely unfounded and never back any of them up or attempt to deal with any other person’s rebuttal to your fallacies. You claim to actually have sources, but “leave them for us to find”. Let me take a moment to cut through the diplomatic red tape here and say: You don’t have sources. It’s now extraordinarily clear that you lied and you really have no basis for your accusations other than a meager collection of non-factual, non real world sites like truecatholic.com. (Oh and probably Fr. Richard McBrien, as the whole Linus thing is typically his schtick.)
Fourth, I’m not too confident you know what the Orthodox Churches teach either. You’ve made numerous errors with regard to the Greek Orthodox, and I don’t see a whole lot of improvement elsewhere in your handling of the other Churches.
And finally, I honestly don’t think there would be any evidence that would convince you that the Catholic Church is right. Not because it doesn’t exist, but because it seems like you simply won’t accept anything other that what you want to hear. “Blinders” my foot… We’ve listened and responded to every one of your arguments, and you’ve ignored just about all of ours. I can’t help but think that the word rude comes to mind. But go ahead, nurse your own personal prejudice. The way I see it, you obviously didn’t come to learn, else you’d be making a greater effort to understand what we’re saying. And you obviously didn’t come to teach, because you make no effort to explain or back up your ideas or cite your sources. What does that leave us with? I can only suppose that you came to judge, condemn and prove yourself better than us lowly Catholics. Thanks again.
So I’m headed to bed, I’m not sure how many more people will post on this between now and tomorrow, but personally I think I’m done attempting to explain unless I see a major change in attitude. (Hopefully I’m not over-reacting here, but I think we Catholics have all been reasonable to this point.) With that I leave the decision in your hands: Are you going to continue to waste time by just posting the same garbage again and again, or will you actually attempt to understand and deal with the objections raised against your theories? Pray for me, I’ll be praying for you.
Your Brother in Christ,
Mr. Spock
I know it’s probably futile to try to engage Gerald, but I have to admit, I’m shocked! Gerald, do you not believe that your Orthodox bishops have apostolic succession? If Peter were not the first Pope, would he not still be an apostle? I have never heard an Orthodox argue that the Latin bishops were not successors to the apostles. Does the Patriarch of all Russia agree with you–I have never heard that he uses this as an issue between himself and the Roman Pontiff–I have never heard that he denied that PBXVI was, indeed, the successor of Peter. I thought that the problem was that the Catholic church overstated his “primacy”. Was St Peter not “first among equals”? Wow, just wow!
Gerald,
Please remember you came here and keep coming back here to a Catholic website. If we are in such error then shake the dust from your feet.
I have two questions for you if you actually answer questions is:
What moral teaching of the Catholic Church do you disagree with? When we know that we will understand why the Catholic Church has to be wrong in your eyes.
Second is charity an important part of your faith?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
You may or may not be aware of this, Gerald, but in Eastern Orthodox biblical scholarship today, as well as Protestant, the whole Petros/petra business is basically moot. Pretty much all scholarship today agrees that Peter himself (Petros/kepha), not his confession or any other such thing, is the rock (petra/kepha) on which Jesus said he would build the Church.
Catholics are a very humorous bunch. They believe that because they have a good code of morality then she[Roman Catholicism] must be the truth. Let us examine this. Does this mean Mormons, who do not drink alcohol or smoke, have a very high standard of morality so does this means they must also have the truth?
Facts speak clearly. The Catholic priests in America have the highest homosexuality rate of any religious institution. Fr. Cozzens, the head of a Catholic seminary, says that estimates range as high as 35% of American priests are homosexual. Yes the pagan cults in the ancient world where filled with homosexual priests. Hence the high rate of pedophila.
Tell me how can a Christian be charitable with an organization that at its heart is satanic and leading billions to Hell. Has 1500 years of treachery and pedophiles in ‘Ordained’ positions. Jesus called the many Jews a synagogue of Satan, I think he would modernize his language and call Rome the church of Satan.
Was Jesus charitable to the Pharisees and Sadducees? No! He knew that they were destined for Hell because they had no interest for repenting for their wicked ways. Rome is the modern equivalent of the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Correction:
I need to correct in my discourse that Linus was sent to Ephesus from Rome by Paul, read 2 Tim 4:21, not that Linus name is listed in the book of Romans. Otherwise I stand by my previous positions.
>Facts speak clearly. The Catholic priests in America have the highest homosexuality rate of any religious institution.
I reply: Not unlike the Eastern Orthodox Monks at Mount Athos. 🙂 Of course that has been going on there for hundreds of years.
Rasputen said it best. He said he hated Athos since it was a place where Man loved Man & not in the Christian manner.
You know they don’t allow female animals on Athos, not that it helps. 😉 The Greek Media has been as harsh toward the sex scandal in the Orthodox Church in Greece as the American Media has been here. The idea the Eastern Orthodox Church is more “Holy” than the Catholic Church is too comical to believe in the face of the overwhelming evidence.
If anything since the American media has left the EO church here in the states alone it is most likely WORST here then in Greece & Greece is pretty bad.
When my brother was in the Navy & went to Greece he told me of his horror seeing 9 year old boys & girls trying to sell themselves even in the shadow of the great Orthodox Cathedrals.
Gerald, I’m pleased to meet you. In a strange way, you make me feel better about belonging to a religious tradition that produced someone like John. Sad to say, it’s oddly reassuring to see that the same type of poisonous bile exists in Eastern Orthodoxy as well as radical Traditionalist Catholicism. Just goes to show there’s bad apples in every barrel. Thanks for that.
I am not Greek Orthodox. I am fully aware of the Greek scandals.
But you are in communion with them. Yes?
What is also very interesting is how Roman Catholics fail to understand how bankrupt theologically she is. Living in America, it is amazing to find the Protestants are the ones who can articulate their faith best. Catholics give the most ridiculous answers on why they are Catholic. Catholics blindly and foolishly parrot the same phrases without believing any of them. How does one expect to be a Christian if there is no heart change. My conclusion after much travel is that only 5% if Roman Catholics have a clear understanding of their belief. The remaining 95% are going to Hell
The Russian Orthodox may be in communion but we still keep a healthy difference from them. Being in communion does not mean complete acceptance. It is more like saying that Catholics are in communion with Protestants.
Inocencio posted:
John,
You said it that Pope Johh Paul II received the mark of shiva.
You were wrong it was an Aarti.
You said it was done with dung.
You were wrong again and I did not say oil someone else did.
You said it was done by a hindu priestess.
You were wrong again it was an Indian Catholic woman.
I told you it was Jimmy Akin’s documentation and linked to his other website. Jimmy gave the letter from the Vatican explaining the Indian Catholic custom.
I am embarrassed for you, John.”
Inocencio, I never agreed with you that JPII was NOT marked with the sign of shiva. I only wanted to explore further your explanation that it was Aarti, which I proved so easily is also another form of Pagan worship
So now matter how you use your Clintonesque escuses to defend a Pope participating in pagan worship, it all comes out to the same conclusion, that he believed profusely that all faiths are equal, that Moslems worship the same god as us Catholics, that Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc-all can be saved, and acted heretical and spoke heresy which in many theologians minds basically excommunicated himself from the papacy
John, Gerald. Gerald, John.
Then Greeks and Russians may not receive communion in one another’s churches, just as Catholics and Protestants may not receive communion in one another’s churches? The Russians regard the Greek communion as deficient and not truly a church, just as Catholics regard Protestant ecclesial communities as deficient and not truly churches? Or no, is it not really similar at all?
Gerald,
I think this format is making you too defensive. May I humbly submit that you may be able to clear up some of your difficulties more effectively by reading some articles.
On What Infallibility Includes:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
Articles on Orthodox/Catholic Issues:
http://www.geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/easternorthodoxy.html
I know, you may not want to read them out of fear of getting Catholic cooties, but if you want to speak intelligently on what really separates Catholics and Orthodox, you may want to read them.
Jesus would call people that preach against homosexuality and priests that practice it behind closed doors, ‘a bunch of hypocrites, destined for Hell.’ However the Catholic church will not excommunicate known homosexuals or pedophiles. At least Protestants clean house when such a scandal is exposed. If Catholics were true Christians, they would read their Bible and would remove these poisonous degenerates from their midst.
Good idea, JohnD, but he doesn’t seem to want to find out what the Catholic Church actually teaches. He is happy to hate the Straw-Man Church he has in his head that he thinks is the Catholic Church. We, being limited by mere facts, cannot reach him. All we can do is pray for him.
Hopefully, however, others who come here with similar misconceptions, but are more open to the possibility of having been misinformed, will read some of sources that have been suggested.
Please read the link on 101 heresies of John Paul II. His statements show his true character.
http://www.truecatholic.org/heresiesjp2.htm
Take a deep breath Gerald.
Do you imagine that telling us we are not really Christian and condemning us to hell is really going to win souls for Christ? If you have a criticism of substance: offer it. We are open to hearing it.
Gerald, Dr. Spock asked you a question earlier — to quote him, “The way I see it, you obviously didn’t come to learn, else you’d be making a greater effort to understand what we’re saying. And you obviously didn’t come to teach, because you make no effort to explain or back up your ideas or cite your sources. What does that leave us with? I can only suppose that you came to judge, condemn and prove yourself better than us lowly Catholics.”
So, why ARE you posting? If you want to educate us, you are being mighty off-putting about it, not to mention pretty skimpy with your sources (i.e., leaving us to find them — not a great argumentation technique). If you truly want to learn from or about us, you seem to harbor a lot of prejudices you have no interest in shedding. So, I ask again, why ARE you posting? If only to show us that we are wrong, well, I think we know where you stand…So can we move on?
I reviewed your links. Clearly Catholic Answers is going to give a positive spin on Papal Infallibility and East-West split. However if you read documents from other sources one receives a completely different perspective. This is what I refer to drinking Koolaid. You drink Catholic Koolaid and thus you believe you know everything. I understand that all people are prejudiced so I like to read the Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic arguments. This is the only way to balance the prejudice. If one does this, one quickly discovers that the gulf between Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant is very large.
It also becomes very clear that some of these churches may in fact be cults leading their people to HELL!
The Bible states:
For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many Matthew 24:5
He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. Luke 21:8
Orthodox Gerald is linking to rad-trad Catholic anti-JP2 propaganda.
Behold how good and pleasant it is when brethren dwell together in unity. Eh, John?
“This is the only way to balance the prejudice. ”
my laugh for the day…
Still waiting for substance
Catholic Cathecism states:
* 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”[330]
* 842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .[331]
If the Catholic Church is stating in paragraph 841 above, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that there are those within the Muslim community who may find salvation by becoming Christians and not remaining Muslims, then I would agree. But, it does not appear to be saying this.
What is disturbing is the statement that “together with us they [Muslims] adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” So, Catholics and Muslims both “adore the one, merciful God.” Quite frankly, it would seem that the Roman Catholic church has a faulty understanding of the God of Islam.
Islam acknowledges that it serves the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. But in so doing it is stating that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were Muslims! Furthermore, Islam denies that God is a Trinity. This is blasphemy!
Radtrads, anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox & anti-Catholic Protestant Fundamentalist.
Can’t help noticing they all say the same thing & one thing unites them. Their hatred & rejecttion of the Successor to Peter.
John is a false Catholic, Steve Camp is a coward, & this Gerarld guy is a nutter. Bullocks the lot of them.
Using Catholic logic, it is clear that Muslims, Hindus, Infidels, and Pedophiles are brothers. Well such a person is deceived in thinking that we are all brothers.
Jesus said, ‘We are His brother if we do His will,” Use the Bible definition of brother, not your western 21st century definition. Again an example of a Catholic more interested in human tradition than the word of God.
Don’t wste your time & energy, folks. Gerald won’t read any links or consider any arguments because he is afraid of the Truth. He is spreading lies, like a true son of his father.
Be gone, troll.
BTW Gerald as long as whatever Eastern Orthodox sect you belong too is in communion with the Greeks & everything you say is hypocritical.
Everything.
This is a wonderful way to begin a sentence. Just these three little words fill me with such confidence regarding the thoughtfulness and reliability of whatever follows.
Tim,
It is very interesting that you can only attack via an ad hominem. I have given you quotes from your on Catechism, yet you resort to a feeble verbal attack.
>At least Protestants clean house when such a scandal is exposed. If Catholics were true Christians, they would read their Bible and would remove these poisonous degenerates from their midst.
Like your brother Orthodox on Mount Athos & the rest of the Greek Church? You perv!
The Russian Orthodox church has no jurisdiction over the Greek Orthodox. They are independent.
I think Gerald is gay. I think the reason he is here is because he is crusing. Sorry buddy we are not interested but I’m sure you can find a nice Monk on Mount Athos who will ablige you.
>The Russian Orthodox church has no jurisdiction over the Greek Orthodox. They are independent.
They could still break communion. That is when they where not collaberating with Atheist Communist against their own people. What a bunch of hypocritcial pervs. Go pull somewhere else Gerald.
# The Pope is the highest office in the church, and the Catholic Church considers him God in the flesh; yet this is not found in the scriptures! (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
# The Pope is called “Holy Father.” This title was used by the Lord Jesus Christ when he was praying to God (John 17:11). It only occurs one time in the entire scripture. Hence, for the Pope to demand his followers to call him by this title is blasphemy!
# The Catholic Church says that priests are to be called ‘Father’, yet Jesus forbade this (Matthew 23:9, John 17:11).
# The Catholic Church says that ‘Bishops’ must not be married: whereas the scripture shows that Bishops must not only be married but must also have children (1 Timothy 3:2-4; Titus 1:5-7).
# The Catholic Church says that all priests, bishops & Popes are forbidden to marry; The scripture calls “forbidding to marry” a “doctrine of demons” (1 Titus 4:1-4). Not only was Peter married (who they claim was the first Pope), but the apostle Paul preached that he had the prerogative to take a wife and bring her on his journey’s with him as other apostles did (1 Corinthians 9:5)! This shows the fallacy of those who promote celibacy among the clergy.
Gerald,
You seem to think you are personally infallible and the judge of mankind (and the brother of John).
John,
I pray for you and Gerald. Sad to be so confused that you actually believe the pope is a heretic when it is really you.
O Mary conceived without sin pray for us who have recourse to thee, Amen.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
The Catholic Church is making a distinction here between Muslims and Pagans. That’s all there is to this statement. That and the shared humanity of all races and nations. Don’t over interpret what is polite language for acceptance or agreement. The Catholic Church strives to be as charitable in word and speech as doctrine will allow -Muslims (and all those outside the Church) are given the benefit of the doubt.
I find ad hominem attack very amusing. It only proves that the attacker has no real faith in God, but only a counterfeit faith. Thanks, Ben
SDG,
Thank you for the laugh. Still laughing. I enjoy this blog so much because it reminds me of the joy and humor of being Catholic.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio,
Only Catholics believe in Marian doctrine. This false doctrine was greatly advanced in the 19th century. Yes, Marian doctrine is one of the doctrines of demons.
II Timothy 4:3,4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
1 John 4:1 – 4 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Gerald, in God’s name, forbear. The measure you measure with will be measured back to you.
“By their fruits you will know them.”
The fruit of hate speaks volumes.
(Prepare for the “I know you are, but what am I?” reply).
Gerald,
Please understand that we have had John not listening to reason for so long that when you come along and do the same are reaction is…yawn…
You are not hear to discuss only shout and condem. Really we understand.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Gerald yur still in communion with the Greek church & all their gayness. That must please you greatly.
inocencio,
I do not condemn, but warn you that you are being lead astray. If anything the hate is coming from your fellow Catholics. Tim J, should know better. Maybe he should become a baptist again.
“I do not condemn…”
LOL!
Gerald,
yawn…please you are making me sleepy. You like John have no authority and seems to drive you insane.
I will keep you in my prayers to Blessed Mary who all generations shall call Blessed.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Inocencio, buddy, I’m writing ’em for you! 😀 Thanks for holding your end of the line.
>Only Catholics believe in Marian doctrine. This false doctrine was greatly advanced in the 19th century. Yes, Marian doctrine is one of the doctrines of demons.
Of course gayboy forgets St Gregory Palamus believed in the Immaculate Conception.
>I do not condemn, but warn you that you are being lead astray.
We reject warnings from gay people.
Over the last 15 years, many stories have been published about clerical sexual abuse. Should we speak of a crisis? Certainly the Kansas City daily paper the Star thought so when in January 2000 it created a stir by claiming that priests were dying of AIDS at four times the rate of the general population.(1) Some Catholics, probably rightly, denied the statistic, which was based on a narrow survey. The truth of the matter is that there shouldn’t be any priests dying of AIDS, and the newspaper article should have caused widespread concern. But almost the opposite seems to have taken place.
Ben. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
SDG,
We are brothers-in-arms! Church militants march!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Ben,
You are an amusing person. Maybe we should change your name from Ben Yachov to Ben Jackoff!
BEN AND GERALD (OR GERALD AND BEN, NO PARTICULAR ORDER HERE): THIS IS YOUR RULE #1 WARNING. KNOCK IT OFF IMMEDIATELY.
Gerald,
I hope your day/life gets better.
I will keep you in prayers and ask you to keep me in yours if you pray.
To everyone else may you feel the protective mantle of our Lady everyday and in every battle.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former priest, has studied celibacy, chastity, and sexuality in the priesthood for four decades. He has authored three books on the topic. He once estimated that 30% of the priesthood is homosexually oriented. 5 Elsewhere, he is quoted as estimating that between 25% and 45% of American priests are homosexual in orientation. 6 He told the Boston Globe: “If they were to eliminate all those who were homosexually oriented, the number would be so staggering that it would be like an atomic bomb; it would do the same damage to the church’s operation…It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world. And it’s very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations.
-Yes, I want a church that makes a Homosexual pope or priest into saints. Let us examine the Bible.
1 Cor 6:9-10 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
>You are an amusing person. Maybe we should change your name from Ben Yachov to Ben Jackoff!
I knew you where gay. You just proved it. Sorry we are NOT interested in that sort of thing.
Gerald,
The Catholics and Orthodox were one church for centuries, and despite differences that did arise from time to time never considered themselves separated from each other or from Christ.
Why can’t you at least be as charitable as your church was in making your assessments of things that took place before East and West went their separate ways?
The concensus I see among most Orthodox is that Peter had a primacy but not a supreme jurisdiction. As Bishop Kallistos Ware says somewhere in his book on Orthodoxy, the task before the Orthodox is not just to say that Rome has no leadership, but what sort of leadership that should be. Pope John Paul said as much when he offered the Orthodox a reexamination of the papacy to determine what elements were necessary and could not be set aside, and what was variable, as it were, and open to change to accomodate the Orthodox concerns.
If certain American trends continue — namely:
1.A steady loss of heterosexual priests who leave the priesthood to get married.
2.A gradual reduction of the priesthood through retirement and death. (By the end of the year 2000, “The average age of diocesan priests in active ministry in the United States is 59. For religious priests, it is 63.”) 14 Another source gives the ages as 57 and 63 as of early 2003. 16 By the end of 2005, the latest numbers might be one or two years greater.
bullet The massive drop in the number of seminary students (From 39,638 in 1966 to 4,826 in 1999.) One source says there are fewer than 4,000 in the year 2002.
3. The apparent increase in the percentage of seminary students with a homosexual orientation.
Then, as Father McBrien said: “the Catholic Church will run out of priests, [and] will certainly run out of heterosexual priests.”
Gerald,
Your still in communion with the Greek Church which has THE SAME PROBLEM & it’s been going on for hundreds of years.
Again, I bring up topics and the Catholics are speechless. I guess a quote from Proverbs is appropriate.
Prov 10: 14 Wise men store up knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.
>Prov 10: 14 Wise men store up knowledge,
but the mouth of a fool invites ruin.
Like the guy who can’t deal with the gay sex in the Greek Church or his cowardly Church’s refusal to break communion with them that is when they are not selling out their own people to Atheist Communists.
Clearly you are speechless about that.
Gerald,
You actually quoted Fr. McBrien? Please pat yourself on the back all you want you. You are the definition of a boor.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
COMMENT DELETED. STOP THIS NOW!!!
COMMENT DELETED. STOP THIS NOW!!!
This thread should be closed.
The exchange has become shameful.
Gerald, I am an agnostic who is seriously interested in both Catholic and Orthodox Christianity. Your behavior will not win any converts to Orthodoxy. Your behavior has simply been repulsive.
If you truly want to convert people, you need to step back and re-examine yourself and your methods. You’ve accomplished nothing here but turn people off to what you have to say.
Sorry about that Jimmy. My apologies to you.
First things first,
As a typical westerner you appeal first to person before doctrine. Let me give you a quick quote from Ware.
I am grateful that my initial contact with Orthodoxy was not through reading books, nor yet through meeting members of the Orthodox Church in a social context, but through attending an act of worship. The Church, according to the Orthodox understanding, is primarily a liturgical community, which expresses its true self through invocation and doxology. Worship comes first, doctrine and discipline second. I was fortunate, then, to discover Orthodoxy first of all by participating in an act of corporate prayer. I encountered the Orthodox Church not as a theory or an ideology, but as a concrete and specific fact, as a worshiping presence.
Unfortunately, God gave the Jews instructions(doctrine) before they were allowed to worship. Doctrine proceeds worship. Thus ecumenism is a tool of Satan to deceive the masses. False doctrine leads to false worship!
Unfortunately, God gave the Jews instructions(doctrine) before they were allowed to worship.
How can you say that anything that God chose to do was unfortunate? Do you know better than God?
Smoky,
If you live in the South, I would recommend attending a Protestant church( mainly since there is no Russian Orthodox) before attending a Catholic church. Protestants typically have a much better understanding of Jesus than Catholics usually do.
Unfortunately, means that God knows better than Bishop Ware. Thus Bishop Ware is confused.
This guy is a loop tape. Perhaps, while he is familiarizing himself with Rule 1, he should also check out Rule 3.
Bill912,
Truth requires diligent inquiry. Check out the claims on Peter and the claims of the Catholic church and judge for yourself.
Ben: Thanks for having the class to apologize.
In all these controversies, whether it be with Protestants like Steve Camp, James White and Jeb Protestant, or Eastern Orthodox like Gerald, I am regularly impressed with the fact that at the end of the day, while there may be more than enough fault to go around on all sides, Jimmy’s readers are frequently willing to apologize and admit their errors and excesses.
Those on the other side may or may not be any more guilty, but there seem to me to be a lot fewer apologies and acknowledgments of error coming from over there.
Gerald seems to be a case in point.
And how is that different from all your ad hominem about scandals in the American church? The eternal truth of the doctrine of the Petrine office of the bishop of Rome is not affected by the personal failings of any number of bishops or clergy.
Gerald–you bring up topics and Catholics are speechless?????
First, there are not that many speechless people on this blog (Good and bad)
Second, I was criticized (albeit mildly and possible Rule violation) for being too long.
DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT WE WRITE??
or at least what I WRITE?
I agree with you about the EXPERIENTAL and CONCRET ACT of PRAYER especially with the DIVINE LITURGY (but also CHANTING, ICONS, the JESUS PRAYER, the teaching elements of ARCHITECTURE) in the Orthodox Church–it is very beautiful.
It may well come before doctrine–I don’t know.
However, while you point out historical flaws in Catholicism (there are many although some are also debatable–but that is prudential)–I could take you down (and I don’t want to) and discuss sex and financial scandals in the Orthodox Church of America right now (OCA), or sex scandals in the Russian Church, mafia influence, money issues etc. Not from Catholic sources but read Orthodox Blogs–we are human beings and sinners.
Also, with all the sin–the Catholic Church has also produced an incredible network of schools, orphanages, universities, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, art, architecture, hospitals, etc.
And great saints like Damien of Molokai, Mother Teresa, founders of orders that help American Indians, African Americans, the poorest of the poor like St. Katherine Drexel, or immigrants like Mother Cabrini, or Seton. Great Popes like Pope Leo the Great saving civilization, or Pope Gregory and contributions to music. Try to look at it in an objective and balanced way–you sound like a secularist and your own arguments could backfire on you in your own Church.
I pray for the Russian Orthodox Church and respect their pride, grandeur and tradition.
Please respect us here and the Catholic Church.
I think your Patriarch does the same.
Was he *trying* to prove me right in my last post?
My statement is that Protestants and the Orthodox know about the 1700 year old lie that claims that Petrine office of the bishop of Rome. These lies, which the Catholic church refuses to repent for, a false church leading multitudes to Hell.
Do you believe, Gerald, that only Orthodox can go to Heaven?
Michael,
My bishop explained to me when I was young that no church can save you. Only Jesus can save. Catholics will teach that their church can save( see Cathecism). This is why he said, the Catholic church is a great serpent tricking people into thinking that they are Christians when they are only Catholic. This is one area I agree with the Protestants. They understand only Jesus can save.
Unfortunately for you, Gerald, it’s not as simple as citing what “Protestants and the Orthodox know.”
The awkward fact is that Eastern Orthodox thought isn’t entirely unified regarding the exact nature of the primacy of Peter, the Roman primacy, as well as the nature of the relationship, if any, between them.
Of course perhaps you have no trouble consigning any number of wrong-thinking Orthodox theologians to the outer darkness for failing to acknowledge the truth of your interpretation of Orthodox theology.
How unfortunate that a discussion aimed at encouraging Christian behavior has itself become an example of charity restrained.
So illustrative it is of our human condition: that even we who desire to imitate Christ Himself find their own fervor to do so can tempt them to behave in ways that are antithetical to their very purpose.
May God bless all who come here with peace in Christ. May we by His unmerited favor come to fashion our lives as ever better imitations of Jesus, who though in the form of God, did not deem equality with God something to be grasped, but humbled Himself, coming in the guise of a mere man, humbling Himself before God and man and being obedient even in humiliation by submitting to the ignoble death of a criminal: executed for our sins and our sake.
Humbly submitted, I pray as one who likewise must fear God who will judge my own poor imitation of Christ, I remain your servant and brother,
–Theo
Let your love be without restraint. Abhore evil. Cling to that which is good.
Smoky,
Only Christians go to Heaven. Russian Orthodox church is the best example of a Christian organization and is the leader of the Orthodox movement. The Greek church ‘dropped the ball’ and the Russian church is carrying the torch. However in America the best churches for teaching about Jesus are usually Protestant.
From the Catechism: “The name Jesus means ‘God saves’. The child born of the Virgin Mary is called Jesus, ‘for he will save his people from their sins’ (Mt 1:21): ‘there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved’ (Acts 4:12)” (#452)
What’s your reference?
Only Christians go to Heaven
What about infants who die prior to Baptism? Are they in Hell?
… Wait, the guy who is calling names keeps throwing out the accusation that everyone is using ad hominem against him?
And why is Ben Y acting odd?
Ah well…. Other than that, standard ignorant anti-Catholic junk….
Repetitious, too.
Theo,
I disagree with you very strongly. You do not understand the word the Biblical doctrine of charity. Let me quote from the Bible. Paul writes, “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). Paul says a person is accursed if they teach a false gospel. My claim is that the Catholic church is and has taught a false gospel.
We know. You said so. And said so. And said so.
Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is available only through the Catholic church:
“The Second Vatican Council’s Decree on Ecumenism explains: ‘For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.'” Pg. 215, #816
Does Mary, the mother of Jesus, play a role in the salvation of mankind?:
“Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…” Pg. 252, #969
“Being obedient she (Mary) became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Pg. 125, #494
Is this doctrine scriptural? According to God’s Word, Mary has never had anything to do with the salvation process. Scripture reveals that Jesus is the ONLY One who can provide salvation:
“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
Jesus Himself declared that He is the ONLY way to heaven:
“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” John 14:6
“I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved… ” John 10:9
The last sentence of Rule 1 seems appropriate.
Gerald:
Okay, here we have three different sentences.
First you said “Catholics will teach that their church can save.”
Now you say that the Catechism teaches that “salvation is available only through the Catholic church.”
However, your actual quote says “it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained.”
Okay. Does anyone have any difficulty seeing why none of these statements is the same as either of the other two?
In particular, does anyone have any difficulty seeing why the first sentence neither implies nor follows from the second, nor the second from the third?
Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, agnostics? Anyone? Problems? Questions? Please raise your hand.
Gerald, you’ve said that only Christians can be saved. Catholics teach that salvation is *through* the Church, but that God may save both Christians and non-Christians. Catholics don’t teach that only Catholics are saved.
It seems to me that the Catholics are more open to Jesus saving whom He will, according to His Will.
It sounds like you place a restriction on God’s ability to save, not the Catholics.
Dear Gerald, my brother in Christ,
May we seek to be transformed by the very Word of God into His likeness. May The holy Spirit guide our imitations of Christ.
May God bless you and keep you and cause His face to shine upon you and give you peace.
Your servant and brother,
–Theo
Smokey,
The Catholic church teaches doctrine( most comes from Trent and Vatican II) that is not consistent with the Bible. The Catholic church may at one time been a Christian organization, but now it has run off the rails and become a hollow institution teaching the words of men instead of the gospel of Christ.
Smokey,
Notice what the Catholic falsely teaches.
The Catechism pronounces that, as the one true church, those who are baptized into the Catholic church are assured of heaven:
“The Church does not know of any other means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude…” Pg. 320, #1257
The Bible teaches something different.
While Jesus was preaching, one listener who began to comprehend this truth asked Jesus:
“Lord, are there few that be saved? And he (Jesus) said unto them, Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.” Luke 13:23-24
Gerald- you state that “Catholic church teaches doctrine…that is not consistent with the Bible.”
Please provide doctrine and the exact Biblical teaching that it is not consistent with.
Smokey,
Jesus gives another warning to the majority who have disregarded God’s Word and are counting on earning their salvation through good works:
“Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:22-23
>And why is Ben Y acting odd?
Dude I’m acting normal. I love wailing on bigots it’s one of life’s guilty pleasures. But it is Jimmy’s house.
>Ben: Thanks for having the class to apologize.
Thank you for your kindness.
All page numbers sited come from the Catechism.
Gerald, I’ll bet that if you actually cared about learning the truth of what the Catholic Church really teaches, you could find the passages in the Catechism which refute your false interpretation of this passage quite easily. Someone as smart as you, I bet it would take you less than five minutes, if you put your mind to it.
I’m suspecting you won’t try. I’d be very happy to be proven wrong.
Smokey,
You will find that Catholics spend more time appealing to Church Fathers, who never claimed to be inspired, then to reading the Bible themselves. Many of these Church Fathers had questionable moral character. All church Fathers agree that the Bible is inspired, so it more authoritative then them. Begin reading the Gospel of John and you will be on the right track.
Gerald, those are not contradictory. Jesus himself was Baptized to show us what to do– just like he did most everything else to show the way.
You are taking a partial quote utterly out of context; the prior sentence makes it clear that those who have heard the Word need to be babtized, if it’s available.
Here’s the whole thing:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1257.htm
By the way, your quote doesn’t say a blessed thing about how one goes about entering that gate. *smile*
According to God’s Word, Mary has never had anything to do with the salvation process.
Gerald is Protestant. Any Eastern Christian I’ve known or read about honored Mary.
Even from a Protestant view that statement is wrong.
The Catechism pronounces that, as the one true church, those who are baptized into the Catholic church are assured of heaven
That’s clearly not what the Catholic Church teaches. Even an agnostic like me knows that.
The Bible teaches something different.
Your passage from the Bible has nothing to do with the passage from the Catechism.
I hope you don’t think I’m stupid. You’re not doing a very convincing job of arguing.
Mary Kay– I think we can agree that this Garald person is just dead wrong a lot.
Seriously, it’s like listening to my (Scot Protestant) grandmother talk about Catholics.
I do hope and pray that Gerald is not being deceptive about his being an Eastern Orthodox Catholic and not being a Protestant.
If so, what a sad juxtaposition that while folks of the Jack Chick camp claim that Catholics are posing as Protestants in order to undermine genuine teaching, we would find a real-life Protestant posing as a Catholic for that very purpose. I’m sure One so posing woul know that the phrase “deception shall set you free” doesn’t show up in any concordance.
Please know that deception and the Holy Gospel are not compatible. No belief that your opponant is evil or deceptive makes it so.
While knowing that my own witness to the Gospel so often bears my personal stamp rather than God’s own truth that with candor I offer sincere prayers for God’s mercy upon us all as we seek to repent and follow His divine example.
I remain your servant and brother in Christ,
–Theo
Gerald is Protestant
It’s interesting that Gerald suggested I attend Protestant services…would an Orthodox really believe that worship was interchangeable?
I have done my homework. Using only the Bible I will prove that Peter was not the Pope of Rome.
Near 45 A.D., we find Peter being cast into prison at Jerusalem (Acts 12:3, 4). In 49 A.D., Peter was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the Jerusalem Council. About 51 A.D., he was in Antioch of Syria where he got into differences with Paul because he wouldn’t sit or eat with Gentiles. Strange that the “Roman bishop” would have nothing to do with Gentiles in 51 A.D.! Later in about 66 A.D., we find him in the city of Babylon among the Jews (I Pet. 5:13). Remember that Peter was the Apostle to the CIRCUMCISED. Why was he in Babylon? Because history shows that there were as many Jews in the Mesopotamian areas in Christ’s time as there were in Palestine. It is no wonder we find him in the East. Perhaps this is the reason why scholars say Peter’s writings are strongly Aramaic in flavor, the type of Aramaic spoken in Babylon. Why of course! Peter was familar with their eastern dialect.
We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem. Who is this Simon Peter that was in Rome during the middle of the first century? This is how the great false Church of Rome got its start; along with the first leader Simon Peter not the apostle Peter.
Roman Catholic Theologian claim an unbroken line of succession from the alleged first pope. But the list itself is quite doubtful; it was revised several times, with a number who formerly were listed as popes now listed as anti-popes. The existence of an unbroken succession from the apostles to the present can neither be proved nor disproved.
Yes, I honor Mary, however when debating Catholics, they tend to take it to an extreme. We do not believe the same Marian doctrines that Catholic believe. Therefore it is easier when dealing with Americans to present the Protestant position to avoid confusion.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#II
Nuff said.
Wow. Gerald, you really don’t know anything about Eastern Orthodox belief, do you?
Gerald, given your odd beliefs about what Catholics believe, what *exactly* do you think we believe about Mary?
It was when Gerald called Mary, merely “the mother of Jesus”, and denied that she has any role in our salvation, that I became convinced of what I previously suspected: that he is really a Fundamentalist Protestant.
If he were a genuine Orthodox Christian, he would be aware of the title ‘Theotokos’ used by both Western and Eastern Christians since the early days of Christianity.
Another tip-off: Gerald seems to deny the role of Holy Tradition, favoring a Bible-only approach (see for example his comment about Church Fathers), which I think is just as important to the Orthodox as it is to the Catholics.
Smokey,
I am not claiming that Russian Orthodox and Protestant is interchangeable. I am only stating that Catholics like to think they have a lot in common with the Orthodox, they would be wrong. Since you live in America, I think it best, not optimal, to visit a Protestant church instead of a Catholic church.
Hello Gerald!
Funny how there is no mention of the Russian Orthodox?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
My fellow Christians:
I humbly submit that it is not productive to engage with someone who is deceptive. Unless I am sadly mistaken (and I have been before, or course) this appears to be a classic example of “trolling,” whereby a person assumes an outrageous persona, “trolling” (as in fishing) merely to evoke reaction.
May I humbly suggest that all will be best served by resisting the temptation to “feed the troll” as the expression goes.
With fear of the Lord God who knows my innermost heart and mind I remain your servant and brother in Christ,
–Theo
You just nailed him Inocencio – good job! I think the deception tells us quite a bit.
Catholic assume that there is only one tradition. There are multiple traditions. Russian Orthodox have their tradition, Catholics have 23 traditions, and Protestants have their traditions. Only the true church has valid tradition. Clearly I believe the Russian Orthodox has the true tradition. The Catholic tradition went off the rails with Trent in their battle with the Protestants.
So Gerald is full of Smeg & not really Orthodox?
Figures.
John:
I’m giving a personal anecdote from my personal experience. What kind of “backing up” do you want? It’s also pretty amusing to hear you ask for sources, given your typical MO.
I was not ever asked to renounce the Bible, after kissing it or otherwise, as a Rainbow Girl. In fact, as a Rainbow Girl, I never heard ANYTHING anti-Catholic, either. The Rainbow Girls were more interested in doing charity work in the name of Jesus.
Gerald – why don’t you come over to the Catholic.com forums and enlighten all the deluded individuals there?
So Ben are you behaving in Jimmy’s house. Or are you throwing insults? Probably a victim of watching too much TV.
Theo: Your posts are like a breath of fresh air. The Lord bless you.
Mary C, yes, exactly. Thank you for articulating what I didn’t.
Inocencio, 10.0 out of 10.0 on that one!
Furthermore I belong to the Russian Orthodox Diocese of Chicago & Detroit!
Gerald, give it up. You’ve been busted. Big time.
Thank you, SDG. You humble me. May the Lord bless you too.
Gerald,
You lied to me dude. Your not Eastern Orthodox.
No eastern Orthodox would say Mary the Holy Theotokos is merely the Mother of Jesus. A Nestorian might say that but not Eastern Orthodox.
Being rude &anti-Catholic is one thing. But lying to me………
Nothing more to say really since Jimmy doesn’t want me wailing on ya.
You lied.
Gerald,
Then you are giving out an erroneous email along with your other errors.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Again, not a single Catholic can refute my claim that Peter was not in Rome. Let us see what Paul has about false teachers like the Catholic church.
2 Corinthians 11:12-15 And I will keep on doing what I am doing in order to cut the ground from under those who want an opportunity to be considered equal with us in the things they boast about. For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. It is not surprising, then, if his servants masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Smokey,
Many Catholics fall into this camp.
Galatians 1:6-10 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all.
This is what is in store for the blind guides on this site.
Ephesians 5:6-11 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. Therefore do not be partners with them. For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.
Gerald,
You have no reason to continue addressing me. I have no interest in listening to a liar.
Another stinger against the false institution claiming to be a church.
Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Hi Gerald,
How about: “by their fruit you will know them”? Just comparing the generosity and charity of Theo to your hostile condemnations and asking what kinds of seeds are you sowing?
OK, I give up.
I am convinced.
I am going to join the Russian Orthodox Church.
But I am going to learn about Jesus from Protestants.
And I am not going to agree witht the Russian Orthodox Church on their doctrines of the title of the Theotokos, or the Dormition-Assumption.
Gerald, if you do truly are a member of the Russian Orthodox Church, please provide some evidence. I understand that you may not feel like you are obliged to do so, but please try to understand that currently the evidence does strongly suggest otherwise. This is important because if you do truly believe that what you say is true of Jesus Christ, then the fact that we here see you as deceitful prevents us from seeing any truth in what you say, and so prevents us from giving Christ what honor He truly is due.
If, on the other hand, you do belong to St. Johns Family Church and you have been dishonest for some reason, just say so rather than casting even further dispersions on that church. St. Johns Family Church is currently looking extremely bad due to the belief that a member has engaged in such deceit, and I imagine that the other members would be very saddened to have their church so besmirched. If you have been deceitful, simply admit it. We are all Christian, and if you are honest you will be forgiven by those here and be able to have a true and Spirit-filled conversation about Jesus Christ, yourself, and ourselves.
God bless,
Shane
2 Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
When is Jimmy gonna shut down this thread?
I’d even recommend deleting it.
Smokey,
This is my final address to you.
1 Corinthians 1:18-25 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
By God’s grace and mercy, may our ends not be what our actions deserve, but what is purchased by the precious blood of Christ and his precious body, broken for us. May as many as who are called come to the table of our Lord and share in His bounty of salvation. May our sons be removed as far from His beatific vision as is the east from the west.
May God bless you all with every good gift hat you are able to receive. Today if you hear His voice, harden not your heart.
I pray as your servant and brother in Christ,
–Theo
Blogs are not democracies. I respect that. But for what it’s worth I agree with Smoky.
My friend belongs to St. Johns church and I am visiting him for a few days and using his email.
LOL!
Well being blessed with every good gift hat might be nice, I meant to say, “blessed with ever good gift THAT…”
Love might cover a multitude of sins, but no spellchecker covers all of my typoes.
but no spellchecker covers all of my typoes.
Including misspellings of “typos”. 🙂
I am not that experienced with the computer and did not know how to change email. He has apparently been reading your thread. I find it quite interesting.
Egad!
I also wrote, “May our sons be removed as far from His beatific vision as is the east from the west.”
Tough day for my son! that was supposed to be “sin.”
Thank the Lord I was not born to be a monk in the middle ages. magine the likes of me having to transcribe scripture.
By the way that Colossians 2:8 quote is word for word NIV (New International Version) which is a Lifeway/Protestant favorite. What is the favored Russian Orthodox Bible translation, does anyone know?
I think Titus has a very pithy way of describing the lies taught by Catholics.
Titus 1:9-2:1 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. F . . . Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish[ or Catholic] myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth. … In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good. You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine.
Eye wood bee butter two disk-continue.
No hairshirt required Theo – I’m prone to typos too
Gerald, where do you attend the Divine Liturgy?
Theo,
No worries — I just realized I had “Mountain” misspelled as “Moutain” in my handle!
Oopsy-daisy.
Gerald, it doesn’t matter whose email you use. You blew it on the Theotokos and Dormition.
You don’t even know how big of a gaffe you made.
This site is amazing. When the truth comes out, the Catholics run and hide. Our agnostic friend can join his Catholic friends in the Lake of Fire.
Our agnostic friend can join his Catholic friends in the Lake of Fire.
Wow. Again, just wow.
Are there any Orthodox lurkers? Is Gerald’s mindset at all representative of Orthodox?
IMHO there are other tip offs that circumstantially hint at Gerald’s likely Protestant background. The use of Epistles over the 4 Gospels and the quick reference to obscure anti tradition passages are evidence to me.
Remember there are no atheists or agnostics in foxholes. The Apostle stated it well:
2 Corinthians 10:5 We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.
When the truth comes out, the Catholics run and hide.
It’s more like, when people disagree with you, and even have good reason to doubt your sincerity and truthfulness, you resort to condemning them to hell.
Only God judges. You, Gerald, do not.
I humbly suggest we resist the temptation to feed the troll.
Perhaps instead one might politely contact the Pastor at St. John’s Family Church, Mt. Hope and ask whether this is a formal part of their Church outreach program.
It is amazing that the Catholics are more interested in determining which Orthodox church that I attend then defending their faith. The fact is that the Catholic church, like the Mormon church, has deceived you with clever sounding arguments tha t are sending you to hell. I will just say that many in my church are former Catholics and Protestants. Thus I am well versed with both.
Smoky,
Let me correct you on what the Bible says about judgment.
“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1 Peter 4:17
Gerald- ignoring someone’s response is quite rude. I posted a very well-written refutation of your Peter rant.
I even kept it short to avoid the TLDR problem.
I wasn’t aware that my faith was under attack.
If the Catholic church claims to be the true church it must be judged according to the standard of Holy Tradition and the Word of God. Yes, Peter said it best.
“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” 1 Peter 4:17
Gerald, I can assure you that I am more than capable of defending our beliefs, as I understand that many others here are as well. However, Scripture commands that we not argue with fools, that we ignore the heretic after a few admonishments, and other such things, so it is required of us, if we are to live Scripturally, to make sure you are being sincere. As honest as you may be to say you are at your brother’s home, that is in and of itself an easy statement to fabricate. I would be more than happy to discuss anything you like, but I want to know you are honest first. There is no point in trying to have a conversation about Truth Incarnate with somebody who embraces lies and deceptions. So long as you don’t, there shouldn’t be any problem at all.
Gerald- you really do have a problem with finding quotes that say what you want, don’t you? Your choice in quotes makes the assumption that the Catholic Church doesn’t follow the Gospel– by which you seem to mean the Bible, which was not yet complied when Peter said that– an accusation you have made before yet been unable to support.
Anyhow, I enjoyed speaking with you. I will talk to you later.
Is Gerald’s mindset at all representative of Orthodox?
Smoky, no, it’s not the least bit representative the Orthodox.
Smokey:
Thankfully, no. FWIW, I believe that Gerald is probably telling the truth about being Orthodox, but he’s not much more mainstream Orthodox than John is mainstream Catholic.
Having said that, I do think that this sort of persnickety, belligerent hostility to All Things Other does tend to be more characteristic of Orthodox culture than of Catholic culture. OTOH, Catholic culture also has its characteristic faults, some of which are the grain of truth behind some of Gerald’s wild accusations.
Your Peter passage does not imply that we should judge each only that the judgment of Christ begins in the house of God. Besides I’ll take Christ’s “judge not lest you be judged” (in both Matthew and Luke) over this out of context comment from Peter any day.
FOR MULTIPLE, EGREGIOUS RULE 1 INFRACTIONS, GERALD IS HEREBY DISINVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE BLOG.
DO NO POST AGAIN OR MATTERS WILL BE ESCALLATED.
Gerald, we can not listen to you because we have been warned in Scripture not to listen to “cleverly invented stories”.
Come to think of it, they’re not even that clever… let’s just call them “invented stories”.
Eagerly anticipating the deletion of your hateful nonsense, and sincerely yours,
Wow, I actually cross-posted with Jimmy!
My wish has come true…
So much for the “fun”. Now maybe I’ll get some work done.
1 Timothy 4:16 Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.
I still believe that a rational polite interdenominational discussion is possible and helpful to everybody. It’s just hard to find. Is it something about this site or does everybody have this problem?
“…Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.”
Good advice. I will persevere in the True Faith of the Church Christ founded… the Catholic Church.
How will matters be escalated, I wonder?
Memphis Aggie, Jimmy has a very popular site, and is also more open in his comments policies than most, so the net effect is that he gets a wide variety of different kinds of comments.
Sometimes this openness is exploited by nuts and cranks, but it has been my pleasure to be involved in some really interesting debates – spirited at times – with those of genuine goodwill of other traditions, as well as other Catholics with whom I disagree on this or that.
I find the good exchanges worth slogging through the mud of the other kind.
I kinda knew Gerald was not Orthodox when he used the Protestant “Call no man ‘Father'” routine.
Hello? Orthodox Patriarchs? Patris… father. 😉
Thanks Tim
I look forward to a few “spirited” debates of genuine goodwill.
Three.
More.
Memphis Aggie:
I agree with Tim J. It seems that the level of discord we sometimes see on blogs such as this one (I’m new to this one, but I’ve seen others.) is more likely a product of the amount of traffic than any sort of character of the blog site itself.
I think you might find some very cordial interdenominational discussion where the comboxes tend to reflect mutual understanding even while recognizing genuine differences among some of the less well known blogsites hosted by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
I’m not sure of the policy here regarding links, so I’ll put off suggesting any to visit until I know.
In the meanwhile, keep the faith and may the Lord bless you in your every effort on behalf of His kingdom.
Posts. (to join the coveted 500-post club).
oops.
Sorry Smokey.
500 eh? In the Year 2525…………
I meant that this particular thread has over 500 comments now, not that I’ve personally had 500 comments. My personal tally is 4,789. Of which 3 had substance.
Theo- older site, more traffic, more exposure (especially after that whole accusing-folks-of-lying thing a few weeks back), no comment registration and the ignorance of many folks who think that not being registered means that you can’t be tracked…. It draws many earnest folks, and also draws those who mistake faith and/or earnestness for stupidity.
Smoky Mountain,
Of which 3 had substance.
Well that puts you three ahead of me! I used to like when you would add to your name for each post. Why did you stop?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Why did you stop?
I’m a handle artist. Much like any other artist, I go through various periods.
My early days were the Dark Years, in which my handle was “Going Deaf” and I gave Esau a hard time for his use of bold. (Sorry Esau!).
That was followed by the Classical Period in which I adopted the “Smoky Mountain Hiker” moniker.
However, I would was never one to stagnate; my development as an artist quickly blossomed as I entered the Golden Years you so dearly miss in which I modified my handle to suit my post.
Disaster struck, however. I found I was spending way too much time reading the comments on this blog and posting my own gibberish. Thus, with much self-discipline, I abstained from posting on this blog for several months. Those were the Silent Age.
Curiosity is a dangerous friend, however, and I found myself once again reading Mr. Akin’s site from time to time, until ONE FINE DAY I could restrain my artistic nature no longer and I resumed my “contributions” as merely Smoky Mountain. Hence you are in the middle of the Modern Period.
However, every age comes to an end, most often through external means. Your comment, harkening back to the Golden Years, has inspired a new Renaissance of handle manipulation. I now official proclaim this the Smoky Mountain Renaissance.
Any other questions?
Smoky Mountain,
Any other questions?
No, just applause and laughter.
I completely understand taking a break. For Lent I gave up reading and posting comments on Jimmy’s blog.
Now raise your virtual glass or mug…a toast to the Renaissance period of the Golden Years!
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
For Lent I gave up reading and posting comments on Jimmy’s blog.
Interesting. For my wife, reading Jimmy’s blog is her penance.
By any chance is your wife’s name Laura? I smell something familiar.
Ernie,
It is the same for my wife. The green screen my family calls it.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
“The Catholic Church says that priests are to be called ‘Father’, yet Jesus forbade this (Matthew 23:9, John 17:11).”
Gerald:
Russian Orthodox call their priests “Father.” You’re not Russian Orthodox – you must be a protestant.
Whoops!
I missed a couple of posts – sorry, Jimmy.
Echoing Inocencio’s applause and laughter for Smoky Mountain Renaissance :^)
By any chance is your wife’s name Laura? I smell something familiar.
No. How about a bath?
Tell me truthfully that you don’t know what I’m talking about, and I’ll owe you an apology.
I remember being in a Barnes and Noble with a priest once when some guy came up randomly and quoted the verse about not calling any man father. Without missing a beat, the priest asked “Do you call your father ‘father’?” The guy admitted that he didn’t, and was forced to sulk away in stunned silence.
Tell me truthfully that you don’t know what I’m talking about, and I’ll owe you an apology.
Truthfully, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Like I posted already, reading this board is penance for my wife.
Jimmy,
How about setting up a permanent place on this site for the Protestant v. Catholic debate? There could be different rooms for different topics. If people start to get into it, you could tell them to “take it to the room.” Otherwise, it kind of degenerates into a 500+ comment muck.
Then I apologize, Ernie. Or is it Bert? Or B’Art? My Laura-sense just won’t stop tingling. I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.
I cannot hear what you say for the thunder of what you are.
That’s how my girlfriend answered my marriage proposal.
I still haven’t figured out if we’re engaged.
I apologize
Truthfully, I don’t know what you’re talking about.
Ha! It’s a line from a Herzog film. More than one, actually.
That cinches it, B’Ernie. Ecce homo.
Ecce homo
Does the SD in SDG stand for “Some Day”? I thought this was a Latin-free blog. Zulu proverbs don’t mix with Latin phrases, as my pappy used to say.
Heh. I’m not anonymous, and I don’t use new handles in every thread. Plus, I’m more than twice Some Day’s age.
This thread is becoming far too esoteric for me.
Bon nuit.
Theresa,
I deliberately put that quote about the father on to this site to test the spiritual barometer. It proves that most people care more about if someone is a Protestant or Catholic then seeing if the statement is true or not. Thanks for falling into the trap. It proves that most people don’t care about researching multiple sides to an argument.
It is interesting to see that people really don’t know what they believe. I gave a large number of Bible quotes and people felt insulted. Notice Jesus used scripture to defeat the Devil. I must therefore assume Jimmy Aiken is scared of the Bible, and the truth it exposes.
Catholic Answers is filled with ad hominems, so if you can’t take the heat get out of the kitchen.
Holy Tradition can never contradict scripture. Catholic tradition contradicts all the time.
Gerald, you are a liar. You are a lying liar who lies, and the worst thing is that you justify it in your own mind because you choose to believe that Catholicism is so evil that whatever is necessary to oppose it must be justified.
“Spiritual barometer” my big toe callus. “Thanks for falling into the trap.” What angel or vision commissioned you to put forward lying apologetics and “traps” to “test” and entrap Jimmy’s readers? Who made you a judge over your brethren, or if you will not so dignify us, over your fellow man?
Furthermore, you have been disinvited to participate on Jimmy’s blog due to your complete refusal to honor house rules of courtesy. Go and sin no more. God be with you.
“What we got he-ah is fail-ya t’communicate.”
Funny, I can’t seem to find any prior posts on this thread by anyone using the handle “George”. Now, given how many posts there are, I guess I could have missed one. But I’ve got this sneaking suspicion, augmented by the similarity of language structure and lack of coherent thinking, that it’s the same (banned) liar using a new handle.
GeraldGeorge,
In case you missed the disinvitation:
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Was Jesus charitable to the Pharisees and Sadducees? No! He knew that they were destined for Hell because they had no interest for repenting for their wicked ways.
Of course Jesus was charitable toward the Pharisees and the Sadducees! He warned them that their wicked ways would lead them to Hell.
Like, say, “You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies.”
My conclusion after much travel is that only 5% if Roman Catholics have a clear understanding of their belief. The remaining 95% are going to Hell
Is this “clear understanding” you demand within the powers of a little child to understand?
“At that time Jesus said in reply, ‘I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the little children.'”
And, anyway, where in the Bible does it say we are saved by understanding? It is faith in Jesus that is required.
We know from The Bible that the apostle Peter was not in Rome. There was a Simon Peter in Rome after the death of Christ but it is not the apostle Peter that was a fisherman from Jerusalem.
Where in the Bible does it speak of a Simon Peter other than the apostle?
Catholic assume that there is only one tradition. There are multiple traditions. Russian Orthodox have their tradition, Catholics have 23 traditions, and Protestants have their traditions.
And the Bible speaks of traditions variously. You yourself quoted:
“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.”
but there is also
“Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.”
Now, the question is whether the “traditions” of the second quote can mean those of differing churches. Clearly it can not, because then different beliefs would be taught, and the truth is one.
Howdy SDG–
Thanks for your comment. I don’t claim much liguistical knowledge about the term “nigger” and its offensive history. It obviously is derived (like so many American words) from an elide of another word, “negro.” All I can say is that during the entirety of my life, the term always has been a nasty one.
As for my neighbor’s bible study, how they gonna get a catholic interpretation if a catholic doesn’t show up? I’m probably the only papist they know…LOL.
As an aside, looking at all of these arguments, I feel really, really blessed. When I was in my teens and went shopping for a church, the Lord let me know in no uncertain terms that he wanted me a Roman Catholic. I am very grateful that I didn’t have to rely on a debate about scripture and my own brain about what was and was not true.
So, God bless all you seekers of truth out there. Sometimes these arguments about what Jesus said and what he meant are the devil’s own sneaky way of diverting our attention from Jesus himself—
Lighten up fellas..
Celeste
I don’t claim much liguistical knowledge about the term “nigger” and its offensive history. It obviously is derived (like so many American words) from an elide of another word, “negro.”
Actually, I think “negro” is Spanish and “nigger” Porteguese
Re Gerald and his claims that Catholics are pervs but Orthodox aren’t:
Has he read OCANews.org lately?
Hint: Kodiak, Alaska.
Among other cases.
Take no glee in scandal in whatever Church.
It can happen to anyone and any Church.
We must all try to prevent it and protect innocents.
Our Church has much sin and crime to be accountable for.
It is the evil part of human nature–and unfortunately is emperically proven.
It is a shame that the young man on the other post thought the Russian Orthodox Church was above scandal and the Catholic Church was the only Church with scandal.
We should pray for all of this.
We should pray for the unity of all Christians.
Gerald is getting his stuff from
w3 dot christiantruth Dot com forgeries.html
william webster wrote them including the one about Aquinas and the forgeries.
heh oh gerald:I was a baptist too.
I had 5 years theology in a reformed baptist post secondary training institution.
and before I went to seminary I was spoutin’ from the Westminster and the 1689 Confessions of faith. I had it down solid.
Gerald: explore Paul’s understanding and implementation of the idea of ‘union with Christ”. Realize that the whole early church was saturated with that teaching and reality.
And then come on home to the Catholic Church.
Wayne
Michael: With all due respect and with all charity in Christ, please do not assume that you know my motives, which you cannot possibly know. I take no glee whatsoever. It’s not schadenfreude. It is a matter of setting the record straight. Sin is an equal-opportunity affliction, and things are tough all over. But some folks want you to think that the Catholic Church has cornered the market on sin, especially lurid sexual sin. This is a special, distinct form of anti-Catholicism. I call it the Maria Monk Syndrome.
God bless,
Diane
Diane,
Gerald has been banned. BTW he isn’t Eastern Orthodox either he is a pathological liar. He is a Protestant Fundamentalist pretending to be Eastern Orthodox. He denounces Catholic for calling Priests FATHER & he says Mary isn’t the Mother of God but the Mother of Jesus only. Both you & I know even the most anti-Catholic Eastern Orthodox person would NEVER say either of those things since they are heresy against Eastern Orthodoy. Don’t feed the Troll.
Cheers!:-)
BTW I don’t think Michael was addressing you Diane. Chill.:-) God bless.
“Catholic tradition contradicts all the time.”
What is “All The Time,” and how does the Church contradict it? tongue-in-cheek
Jimmy,
[The following constitutes]rudeness: … “Papist,” …”
I like the word, and so does Thomas Peters :^)
There are black people who like the n-word. It doesn’t change the pejorative and objectionable force of the term, especially from non-Catholics, just as the n-word always has pejorative force from whites.
SDG,
I know. I guess I read too much “American Papist.”
BTW, Did you here about the decidedly spanish/conquistador flavor for the Telmarine culture in the new Prince Caspian movie?
I’m probably naive to think that the “P” word isn’t comparable to the “N” word, but I do. However, I, too, am annoyed when non-Catholics use the word, unless they are joking about all of we(?) folks over at American P@pist.
…But I understand that Jimmy made the rule because of rude non-Catholics using the term disdainfully. Peace out.
P.S. Down with any possible injection of historical revisionism into the Narnia movies!!!! 😉
No, I agree that papist isn’t equal in offensive force to the n-word, at least in part because the history of anti-Catholicism, as ugly as it may have been, was never as ugly as slavery, and too Catholic-Protestant persecution was a two-way street in a way that white-black persecution never was.
Nevertheless, though of quite different degrees of offensive force, similar principles apply. It is similar to how an argument about contraception may have reference to abortion, or how an argument about homosexuality may have reference to pedophilia or bestiality. Sometimes a lesser evil can be thrown into clearer relief by reference to a greater, without implying that the two are on a plane.
P.S. They had better not de-Arabify the Calormenes, that’s all I have to say.
SDG,
I’m sorry I couldn’t respond sooner.
Nevertheless, though of quite different degrees of offensive force, similar principles apply. It is similar to how an argument about contraception may have reference to abortion, or how an argument about homosexuality may have reference to pedophilia or bestiality. Sometimes a lesser evil can be thrown into clearer relief by reference to a greater, without implying that the two are on a plane.
That’s an argument that I can’t contradict. 🙂
P.S. They had better not de-Arabify the Calormenes, that’s all I have to say.
Aaaaaaaaamen! (BTW, the source of my concerns is the blog report by the winner of The Ultimate Fan Contest @ http://www.narnia.com, in case you don’t already know.)
I found this in Pope Benedict XV’s Encyclical Letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, 1914:
24. “It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.”
Seems more than appropriate to add it to this topic. “Roman” Catholic, “Liberal” Catholic, “Traditional” Catholic, “American” Catholic – all of these may be considered those appellations which our former Holy Father asked Catholics to abstain from using.