-
The Role of the Federal Government
June 12, 2013 | 47 comments
-
The Seriousness of the Charge
May 29, 2013 | 68 comments
-
The Seventeen Year Itch
May 15, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Questions
May 1, 2013 | 50 comments
-
Stifling Our Children
April 15, 2013 | 39 comments
Lifestyles Left and Right
Evicting Jesus?
The bishop of Phoenix upsets the New York Times and its collective of Planned Parenthood Catholics.
I have often written that the reason some folks persist in calling themselves Catholic is to be ready when reporters from the New York Times come to call. Sometimes I think that the Old Gray Lady might someday be the catalyst for many conversions to the faith, should serious thinkers ever meditate on just why the Church is so often in her crosshairs.
The Catholic Church is the largest institution in the world, and probably the oldest still in existence; and as such, her ways have been and still are well known throughout the globe. Why then, must she constantly explain herself to those who neither hold to her tenets nor share her mission? And even more curiously, why are her attempts to lead her own flock the subject of so much controversy? Surely, in this enlightened age, no one is forced to be a Catholic. If those who chafe at Rome’s bit wish, there are many options out there from which to choose. But this exercise of free will does not serve the real agenda of those who wish all worship of God expunged from our nation.
A case in point is the recent decree by Bishop Thomas Olmsted of Arizona which revoked his consent for St. Joseph’s Hospital to “use the word Catholic or be identified as Catholic in the Diocese of Phoenix,” because he learned that an 11-week-old baby had been aborted in direct contravention of Church teaching. Prior to this unfortunate action he was forced to take, he also privately informed a nun, Sister Mary McBride, who sat on the hospital’s ethics committee that, as a result of her consent to the abortion, she and all other Catholics involved had automatically incurred excommunication.
Anyone familiar with this issue knows that, as has been pointed out by myself and many others including Pope Benedict XVI, that this self-excommunication, or latae sententiae, is supported by Canon law, “which says that the killing of an innocent child is incompatible with receiving communion, which is receiving the body of Christ.” This also explains why Bishop Olmsted was correct in removing the Blessed Sacrament from the hospital chapel and forbidding the celebration of Mass on the premises.
Which is where the Times and its ongoing anti-Catholic crusade come in. An op-ed piece by Nicholas Kristof entitled “Tussling Over Jesus” begins thusly: “The National Catholic Reporter newspaper put it best: ‘Just days before Christians celebrated Christmas, Jesus got evicted.’” (A note to those who think NCR is a Catholic publication representing the views of a great many Americans of the Faith: NCR and its ilk are no more representative of adherence to the Magisterium of the Church than are Planned Parenthood and its supporters in encouraging women to become parents.)
In keeping with Times’ policy as stated in my opening paragraph, Kristof then quoted a total of four “Catholics”; the hospital’s president, two writers from NCR, and vampire chronicler Anne Rice, who recently “quit being a Christian;” a group she now calls “quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious and deservedly infamous.” Kristof then goes on to crow that “The Catholic Health Association of the United States, a network of Catholic hospitals around the country, stood squarely behind St. Joseph’s.” Except that, the CHA — which naively backed ObamaCare, believing promises that it contained no federal abortion funding — has since recanted and issued a statement supporting the bishop and recognizing that he is the “authoritative interpreter” of the ethical and religious directives that guide Catholic health care in his Diocese.
And in choosing to revoke St. Joseph’s Catholic designation, Bishop Olmsted cited continued abuses by the hospital and its parent organization, San Francisco-based Catholic Healthcare West. Indeed, CHW and its affiliates are responsible for distributing numerous types of contraception, performing sterilizations and granting monies to organizations that promote Planned Parenthood and the homosexual lifestyle; all of which may seem desirable to some, but not to faithful Catholics.
And that’s the problem. Most folks, and indeed many Catholics who have not been properly catechized, simply do not understand the Faith. They don’t understand, for example, that excommunication is far from being a tool to punish and permanently separate Catholics from the Church, but an act of charity aimed at getting the person to recognize their error and return to a faithful reception of the sacraments; most often accomplished simply by making a sincere sacramental confession and receiving absolution.
Servant of God, Archbishop Fulton Sheen, once famously said, “There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course, quite a different thing.”
And this, my friends, is what consumes the New York Times and its minions; expanding on the lies and distortions about the Church and her Founder. It’s why folks like Kristof, who make a habit of denigrating people of a certain faith — hint: it’s not Islam — will continue to seek out disgruntled Christians who have lost their way as proof that religion is indeed merely the opiate of bitter clingers.
But when it comes down to it, the only ones evicting Jesus are the people who have chosen to expel him from their hearts by rejecting the hard parts of his teaching that interfere with their chosen lifestyles.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (454) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From Lifestyles Left and Right
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/03/evicting-jesus
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A World Turned Right Side Up
- The Mole in Don Draper
- A Panoply of Beauties
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 6:33AM
What I have concluded is that the Catholic church is most endangered by those whose mission is stop those of us willing to follow the tenets of the Catholic Church -- so they will not have to follow them. I am reminded of an exchange between Sam Donaldson (late of ABC) and Steve Forbes regarding the *fair share* dispute vis-a-vis rich folks and taxes. Mr. Forbes informed Mr. Donaldson that he (Sam) was free to give as much of his money to the government as he want to -- and Mr. Donaldson blurted, *But I want YOU to give your money to the government!*
In other words, these folks will not rest until we are all free to do as they tell us to do.
Martyr is a word that means Witness. My Catholic brothers and sisters, Martyrdom is back in town.
KyMouse| 2.4.11 @ 9:19AM
I gladly join with my Catholic co-workers and friends in speaking up for the rights of the unborn, and on other issues.
However, it isn't bigotry to point out where Catholicism has dangerously parted with biblical truth; in fact, it's the duty of Christians to weigh the claims of each denomination or sect that says it is Christian.
As far as I know, Catholicism retains belief in the deity of Jesus; the Triune God; Jesus' virgin birth; and Jesus' bodily resurrection and future return to Earth. But Catholicism denies the essential doctrine of justification by God's grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9). Catholicism also denies that Jesus' work of redemption was completed on the cross, and that His atonement is sufficient for the forgiveness of sin.
Beyond those essentials, there are grave questions about the authority of the Catholic Church to dispense God's grace (believers need NO mediator other than Jesus, I Timothy 2:5); about giving any degree of devotion or veneration to anyone except the Trinity; Mary's alleged immaculate conception and titles, including Queen of Heaven; and much more.
Scripture, not the Magisterium, has final authority, because it is a direct revelation from God and carries the very authority of God Himself (Galatians 1:12). All that we must believe is found within the Bible, and NO other source is binding or authoritative. Jesus Himself used the Scriptures as His final court of appeal (John 10:35) and affirmed its final authority (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10).
Who are we to contradict Him?
Furthermore, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 explains, "...from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise to salvation through faith which is in Messiah Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."
If, as Paul said, the Scriptures are enough for Timothy, why aren't they for us?
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 9:59AM
KyMouse,
Why did Saint James say in his letter:
"So faith also, if it have not works, is dead in itself. But some man will say: You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without works; and I will show you, by works, my faith. You believe that there is one God. You do well: the devils also believe and tremble. But will you know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Do you see that faith did cooperate with his works and by works faith was made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only? And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers and sending them out another way? For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead. (emphasis mine)
James 2:17-26
So, who was right? Saint Paul (as interpreted by Luther, and others) or Saint James?
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 10:49AM
It's not necessarily contradictory.
The position is that faith PRODUCES works, and that those works do not and cannot earn us any favor with God - they are a byproduct, not a means.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 12:56PM
Ryan,
I'm not claiming it's contradictory. I'm stating that it renders "justified by faith alone," i.e. sola fide, a false doctrine.
Saint Paul never said that we are justified by faith alone. That was Luther's doctrine. Saint Paul and Saint James taught the same Good News.
I agree with you, to a point. Works are not a "byproduct," as you state. Saint James clearly says that the two go hand in hand. You can't have faith without good works, and you can't have good works without faith.
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 1:23PM
I think we're at the point where we may disagree on what Justification actually is. The standard definition per Westminster:
"Justification is an act of God’s free grace,wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone."
I think Catholics define it differently, particularly on the "imputed" part, but you may know better on that point.
That being said, the "byproduct" argument simply means that we WON'T truly be able to do good works UNTIL we have faith.
The conclusion that I came to is that both sides of this argument actually agree more closely with one another than they realize; it's just that Catholics get nervous on the "sola" part and Protestants believe that Catholics essentially believe that it's salvation by works, when it really isn't.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 3:39PM
Ryan,
I am unfamiliar with the Westminister. Does it define what Saint James meant when he said, "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?"
It's been a while since I've read up on the justification argument. I can tell you that Catholics do not believe in once saved, always saved. That would negate Hell, would it not?
One can lose his faith. But, thanks to Christ's Redemptive act on the Cross, we can always be forgiven and welcomed back into the fold.
It is exactly how one does this, that has Catholics and Protestants divided. Which is a shame. But, I will keep praying for there to be One Lord, one faith, one baptism, once again.
God Bless!
Ryan| 2.7.11 @ 8:25AM
It's probably better defined as Perseverance of the Saints (the P in TULIP) - where, since salvation is completely an act of God's Grace, then He keeps His own faithful until the end. It doesn't negate Hell at all, since all are bound there in the first place.
The general argument here is that if someone "loses faith," they never really had it to begin with.
Nick| 2.7.11 @ 3:00PM
Ryan,
But, aren't we all sinners?
If we all reject God, by committing sinful acts, does that mean we never had faith to begin with?
I just think it is pretty clear that the teaching of Saint James, which I quoted above, disproves the doctrine of sole fide.
This is why Luther wanted to remove Saint James' letter from his bible translation.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:18PM
Ryan wrote: "It's not necessarily contradictory."
Luther added the word "alein" to his translation. The word is not there.
Strictly speaking, these two statements:
"You are justified by faith alone" - Martin Luther,
and
"You are justified by works, and not by faith alone" - James 2:24
Aren't these two statements contradictory?
The only place in scripture I can find the words "faith" and "alone" together are in James 2:24, where it says "not by faith alone".
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 3:52PM
Being justified is not the same as being redeemed. To be justified is to prove worthy of that which you have already been given (Grace and Redemption).
A simple example of what I believe Ryan (and what I subscribe to) is saying:
A man work's hard, earns money, and is rich.
The world sees his riches and knows that he is a hard worker. But it is not the riches that makes him rich... it's the hard work. We are saved by our "hard work" (ironically, in this example, faith). We are able to show proof of it with our "riches" (our works). If one has true faith, they will do works. But it is not these works that they are saved by, but only how they are identified by to the world. The world does not understand faith, thus it is our works, with the blessnig of God, that they will know us and be draw to God.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:00PM
YeloStalyn: No offense, but I find your simple example somewhat tortured.
I know we are discussing difficult things, so I don't necessarily disagree with what you have offered. For example, you say "We are saved by our hard work (ironically, in this example, faith)."
Yes, Jesus called faith in Him a "work" (I forget the passage). But in James 2:24, the Apostle is clearly talking about faith and works as different things, not just faith "as a work". And he states "you are justified by works and not by faith alone".
I think the Catholic church could go along with "you are saved by grace alone", but not by faith alone.
Ryan| 2.7.11 @ 8:32AM
Something that has to be thrown into the mix here is Eph 2:8 - "By Grace are you saved, through faith, not by works, lest any man should boast."
In a sense, Abraham's actions came from faith FIRST - if he didn't have faith, he would never have put Isaac on that altar. His faith brought about the action - sacrificing Isaac - and he then proved his faith, and was justified.
The two are inseparable.
However, here's the point that we try to make about grace - that without God, Abraham would never have even climbed that mountain. It was God's working previously in Abraham to do all these things.
Frisbee| 2.8.11 @ 9:48PM
Ryan: I think Ephesians goes on to clarify that Paul is still talking about "works" of the law, as he did in his other letters. Just two verses later, he mentions circumcision (Eph 2:11) and then explicitly refers to "the law with its commandments and regulations". (Eph 2:15)
old white guy| 2.5.11 @ 11:45AM
god told him to put his son on the alter. he had faith and did so. god removed the necessityof him comleting that work.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 10:38AM
KyMouse,
Your understanding of all of the above is incorrect.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 3:35PM
KyMouse wrote: "I gladly join with my Catholic co-workers and friends in speaking up for the rights of the unborn, and on other issues."
One of the good coming out of the present evil cultural climate is that Christians are coming together again.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 4:49PM
KyMouse wrote: "If, as Paul said, the Scriptures are enough for Timothy, why aren't they for us?"
Because Timothy was a Bishop.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:04PM
Hey, wait a second, Paul didn't say the Scriptures are "enough".
old white guy| 2.5.11 @ 11:47AM
rev22, 19&19;
old white guy| 2.5.11 @ 11:49AM
rev 22, 18&19;
Frisbee| 2.7.11 @ 7:50PM
old white guy: Rev 22: 18-19 is this: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll."
That says not to add or subtract words from scripture. It does not say that scripture is "enough" in the sense that you don't also need the Church.
To put this in context, I was objecting to KyMouse's post referencing 2 Tim 3:15 and saying Paul said scripture was "enough". Paul didn't say "enough". He did say "profitable".
And he did say "that the man of God may be complete".
Frisbee| 2.7.11 @ 7:24PM
KyMouse wrote: "Beyond those essentials, there are grave questions about the authority of the Catholic Church to dispense God's grace (believers need NO mediator other than Jesus, I Timothy 2:5); about giving any degree of devotion or veneration to anyone except the Trinity; Mary's alleged immaculate conception and titles, including Queen of Heaven; and much more."
Sorry I didn't see your list on the first read of these posts. Let me break it down for you as best I can:
1) "the authority of the Catholic Church to dispense God's grace (believers need NO mediator other than Jesus, I Timothy 2:5)"
Answer: the Church is the Body of Jesus. If Jesus is an essential mediator, then so is his Church.
2) "about giving any degree of devotion or veneration to anyone except the Trinity"
Latria is given to God alone. Veneration and devotion are for the venerable and the devout.
3) "Mary's alleged immaculate conception and titles, including Queen of Heaven".
The Immaculateness of Mary is seen in the angel's greeting "Full of Grace". Another title which is more explicit is "Blessed", in which the scripture is "All generations shall call me blessed".
"Queen of Heaven" is an easy one, along with her Assumption into heaven: "A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. "
Let us pray for the "eyes to see".
Brian Mc| 2.3.11 @ 7:02AM
Why would anyone find rapturous joy in the news that the Church is demeaned, defamed and destabilized? A sentiment blatantly exposed in Appleby's first statement. The Church will be a target until it is 'modernized' so that some can sleep better at night, I suppose.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:10PM
Brian,
The Church has always been a target. Since Day 1.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:01PM
I think you mis-read Appleby's post.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 5:43PM
Frisbee, I was responding to Brian...
Frisbee.... I like that handle.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 7:24PM
Sorry Ted - so was I. That's why my comment wasn't indented. Brian saw something he didn't like in Appleby's post. Actually, I found Appleby's post a little weird myself.
Thanks - these comment sections are a little bit like the old "frisbee" back and forth.
Nancy in NC| 2.3.11 @ 7:12AM
I am not Catholic, however I see this as an attack on all of those of faith. Any religion that stands on principle can, will and does get attacked by the left (other than Islam).
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 8:17AM
I'll stand with the Catholic Church on this one. Though we have serious disagreements over theology, the RCC is well within its authority to excommunicate here.
Excommunication is about not repenting of sin - of blatantly refusing to adhere to the Word, to correction, and to those under whom which proper authority is granted.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:14PM
Ryan,
Please remember that the Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are not the same thing. The Roman Catholic Church is but one Rite within the Catholic Church. The only reason I point it out (in a fraternal manner) is that you appeared to use Catholic Church and RCC interchangeably in paragraph 1.
Also, although it may seem to be a quibble over semantics, the Church did not excommuncate anyone. Those people who were excommunicated did it to themselves by participating in the abortion in question.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:29PM
Us silly American Protestants. Yeah, it's too easy there.
I don't think it's wrong to say that the church hierarchy does the exommunicating, though. It's an active - not passive - process, isn't it?
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:14PM
I was once a Protestant. No worries. I understand from where you are coming.
The excommunication process doesn't have to be an active one. In this case, Bishop Olmstead would simply be acknowledging a state of affairs (if you will) that the excommunited brought upon themselves. No action on the part of the Church (other than acknowledging the state of affairs) is necessary. I know it sounds like one and the same, and at the same time it isn't.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 2:55PM
I got it. It's more of a pre-declarative - if you're for abortion, you're excommunicated as a point of fact without individually going through the process.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 3:27PM
Yes. If one has participated (as is the case in Arizona) in any way with this procured abortion, then by that participation one automatically excommunicates onself. That in a nutshell is the process in this case. The Church simply recognizes that one has done this to oneself.
In this case, participating in an abortion is always wrong, so the excommunication is automatic.
In the "active" process you referred to above, the Church would take a more active role to determine if in fact one had excommunicated oneself by one's actions.
An important point is that a person always excommunicates oneself by their actions. Sometimes (as is the case here) it's automatic because what was done is always wrong. Where the Church takes an active role, they are trying to determine if one has in fact excommunicated oneself.
Vern Crisler | 2.3.11 @ 8:05PM
But if the church refuses to serve communion to them, isn't that a formal act of excommunication?
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:00PM
Vern: It's a good question. Any Catholic who commits a mortal sin is obligated to keep themselves from Communion until they can make a sacramental Confession.
Some sins are so grievous that the statement is a public Excommunication. In the case of abortion, the sin is so grievous that the language used is harsher, and Bishop Olmsted announced so publicly. I'm not a Canon lawyer, but it may be the case now that a simple sacramental confession is not adequate for the people involved, and they may need to confess and publicly reconcile with the (or a) Bishop.
Some sins, for example by bishops against the unity of the church, can actually only be forgiven as "reserved to the Apostolic See", that is, by the Pope only.
The Codes of Canon Law for both the West and East Catholic churches are here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/cdc/index.htm
Tony in Central PA| 2.3.11 @ 9:14PM
My copy of the Cathechism doesn't exactly say its a formal act of excommunication, Vern. It seemed a bit vague. People in a state of mortal sin ( gravely serious sin by the teachings of the Church ) are not to receive Communion. That doesn't mean they can't attend Mass. If they choose to sincerely repent, they can go through the sacrament of Penance and be readmitted.
FREE tea| 2.3.11 @ 8:26AM
---Lint picking.
AS we slide on along the New World Order's
agenda of spiritual, economic, cultural, moral
and territorial dissolution ----the ONLY topic
in town is undiscussed ---EVEN in the aftermath
of the Pheonix tragedy and its occult connections.
WHAT?
---Capstone, Luciferian FREEMASONRY,
and its VAST host of ultra-rich, TAX FREE,
eugenocide-driven 'charitable' foundations
and their utter infiltration and control of
culture, religion and government ---EVERYWHERE.
THINK the Rockefeller founded and funded,
directed and sustained 'World Council of
Churches' and its deadly effect on sound
Christian doctrine with Arminianism
----and creeping 'moral relativism'.
"Understand, these boys are inbred, interbred,
global genocidal psychopaths. They have engineered and handed us a psychopathic
culture."
-Alan Watt
(online)
'When we get through with you,
you'll WISH you were a tree---"
-Maurice Strong
Globalist ---and, NO DOUBT, a 33rd degree MASON
Keep going! ---everything's just dandy!
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 9:14AM
Does this mean that rich guys have more power than we do?
Le Cracquere| 2.3.11 @ 6:49PM
This guy must be right. Why, I'm a 53rd-degree Mason myself ... and they tell me THERE IS NO SUCH THING.
And why has the Church hidden the fAcT that the precise translation of Hebrew "melech" is not "king," but "branch manager of the Space Bankers"?
NONE DARE CALL IT "invigorating, well-paced CONSPIRACY, the MONSTER screenplay for which I urge your studio to consider on spec, and in which Gary Busey has expressed formal interest."
The damned sheep.
ConantheContrarian| 2.3.11 @ 8:29AM
Don't stop now. Excommunicate some politicians too. Are bishops emboldened now that the Kennedy clan is no longer in positions of power? We can only hope.
Dan Hirsch| 2.3.11 @ 11:28AM
Could we get Bishop Olmsted transferred to South Bend Indiana so those frauds could be straightened out as well? Please, please, please?
Nick| 2.3.11 @ 7:13PM
Mr. Hirsch,
Keep praying!
You will get your own version of Bishop Olmsted someday.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 8:41AM
“You should realize that the community with which you deal is not the one of 42nd Street and Broadway, or Hollywood and Vine. These are the crusts on the great American sandwich. The meat is in between.”
Fulton J. Sheen
gazinya| 2.3.11 @ 8:52AM
I was raised in the Catholic Church. My first eight years of education was in a Catholic school. This was in the years 1953 to 1961. I continued through high school with weekly catechism and of course Mass. I left the Church in 1965. I became agnostic. Then sometime in the early 70's I read, for the first time, something from the Bible. The Gospel of Matthew. In all my Catholic education we were taught the Catholic dogma but I can not remember anything from the Bible. Not in class and not in the Mass. That is why I was so disillusioned with the Church. After reading 'Matthew' I saw what I was not being taught.
Today I am not angry with the Church but I do wish they had taken a harder line against all those who claim faith to Catholicism but deride the tenents. The Church should have, long ago, excommunicated people like Kenneys', Pelosi's, Dodds and any person that supported or voted for abortion. Maybe the Church would benefit from the reading of the Bible.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 9:08AM
“I feel it is time that I also pay tribute to my four writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.”
Fulton J. Sheen
PJ| 2.3.11 @ 10:09AM
"...but I can not remember anything from the Bible. Not in class and not in the Mass."
I think you need to read a good book on the meaning & origins of the Mass. It should explain the whys, whens, hows, wheres... all originated from the bible. For instance, did you know the the 1st, & 2nd & gospel readings & the responsorial psalms are taken directly from the bible? Always have, even when you were a child & always will.
Not writing to convert you, but if you are going to be disillusioned with the Catholic Church, pick another reason.
Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 11:40AM
I suggest "Catholicism for Dummies" which I bought because I am a rather new Catholic and nobody adequately explained the nuts and bolts to me (although because I attended Bible College, I had a very good grounding in the Bible itself.) If you don't want to be "preached at" but you do want to know what makes the wheels go round, that book will explain it clearly and objectively.
Bob Grant| 2.3.11 @ 7:21PM
Better yet, just pick up any book including the complete catechism. Gazinya's beef with the Catholic Church has no merit what so ever. She claims she was taught "Catholic dogma" but nothing directly from the Bible?
Each day Catholics are offered readings directly from the Bible. As a matter of fact, today's Lectionary is as follows:
Heb 12:18-19, 21-24
Ps 48:2-3ab, 3cd-4, 9, 10-11
Mk 6:7-13
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 7:30PM
Appleby: welcome to the Catholic church! I recommend good conversion stories, as there is so much wrestling with scripture and its meanings and history and our own upbringings. Patrick Madrid has published the "Surprised by Truth" series. Also, Marcus Grodi put together a good collection ("Journeys Home" I think).
YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 11:43AM
I'm not Catholic, but do have a lot of respect for the RCC. I understand what gazinya is saying, though. It's one thing to do things derived, and maybe rightly so, from the Bible. It's quite another to delve directly into the Word itself. For example... the Lord's Prayer. An obviously perfect prayer. But to learn it as a prayer in and of itself is one thing. To study it as the direct words of Christ and to study their meaning in the full context of when it was given is quite another.
To be fair... it's not just the RCC that suffers from this. Many churches preach, "Be good and love Jesus!" but often skirt around digging deep into the Word itself.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 11:47AM
Here's the difference, and one of the issues I have with the RCC...how many people open a Bible up in the pews when it is read?
Mike McLaren| 2.3.11 @ 12:38PM
Ryan, that's not a problem with The Church, that's a problem with some Catholics. That is a difference. I might be wrong, but I think it was St Jerome who said ignorance of scripture is ignorance of Christ.
Again we are reminded of what Archbishop Fulton Sheen said about most people not knowing what The Church actually teaches. A side not, if it is a hundred people who actually hate The Church, I think they must all work at the Times.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:35PM
I agree here, but if it's a widespread problem, is that a failure of church leadership and teaching or failure of the layman in the pew?
InLineFour| 2.3.11 @ 2:53PM
Mike, Ryan has a valid point. Once, during Mass, the parish priest told us that if anyone took issue with what our priests were teaching us, and quoted scripture in their argument, we were not to listen to them because in Acts 15 God gave Catholic priests, and only the priests, the authority to interpret scripture, and make doctrine wherever the scriptures were silent. Therefore we should listen to our priests, and no one else. I had to pick my jaw up off the floor. If that isn't discouraging people from studying their Bibles, I don't know what is. Why didn't the priest instead mention Acts 17, where the apostle Paul praised the noble-minded Bereans, "..for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so."
But this in no way makes Miss Fabrizio's column no less true, which she so perfectly summed up in her last sentance.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:20PM
Ryan,
That depends on who is following along and who is not. If you attend Sunday Mass and are doing your part, you should be reading along from the Bible during the first reading (usually from the Old Testament), the second reading (usually from the New Testament except for the Gospels), and the third reading (from one of the Gospels).
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:34PM
There's a "should be" and an "is doing" here. Many of the Catholics on this board seem to be diligent about their studies and such. The Catholics that I grew up with in South Louisiana were much less so.
Of course, maybe much of the same could be said about the Protestant faiths, but, as I was growing up, the person who left their Bible at home was the odd man out.
Evanston2| 2.3.11 @ 11:53AM
Clint, It's really swell that the 4 Gospels received the endorsement of Fulton Sheen. Otherwise, who would believe them? PJ, I actually agree that, to a point, the presentation of the Eucharist is Biblical. Also, as you say, that there are many other divisions that are much more clear between Protestants and Rome. That said, Rome says that most Protestant communion rites are invalid. Also, in online discussions with Catholics, I have been told that holding a mass just because it's "In remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24-25) is not good enough for them to want to personally participate. Essentially, Rome's views on the significance of the Eucharist must hold or it's not worth doing. So some "good Catholics" do not want to do what our Lord commanded if they are not blessed according to their expectations. In sum, Rome does not view Protestant obedience to the Bible as sufficient, nor do many laymen. So Rome uses the Bible when convenient but relies ultimately on its own authority on this matter, as it does on all others.
YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 12:17PM
Evanston2... you have pointed out the main difference between hard line Catholics and Protestants. A Protestant, no matter how closely they follow the Bible, is not a good Christian to a Catholic (because if he were a good Christian, to the Catholic... the Protestant would BE a Catholic). A Catholic, so long as they follow the Bible first and man second, is a Christian to Protestant without a second thought.
This has been, at least in my experiences, the biggest difference between the two. And why I find myself happily Baptist.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 12:56PM
No one's holding a gun to your head to be a Catholic Evanston2.
You're a crybaby agendist with an AS Trail of badmouthing Catholics.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:21PM
Evanston2 wrote: "Rome says that most Protestant communion rites are invalid."
Actually, it was Zwingli who first said the Protestant communion rites were invalid. He didn't believe in any communion rites. Luther and Calvin both believed in some form of Real Presence (correct me if I'm wrong).
As for my own belief, I defer to St Justin Martyr:
"And this food is called among us Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Savior, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh."
Justin Marytr First Apology Ch 66,
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 12:21AM
Frisbee,
Great comment!
It should be noted that Saint Justin's Apology was written in A.D. 155, only 125 years after the death of Our Lord.
Saint Justin Martyr could easily have known disciples of the Apostles, i.e. people who were taught, by the people who were taught, by Christ.
Boy, it sure didn't take long for the Church to apostatize, did it?
Makes one wonder why Christ bothered to go through all the trouble of becoming the Incarnate Word; preach for three years; suffer, die, and rise from the dead; if His teachings were going to be corrupted by His disciples fairly soon after His Ascension?
You would think that the same Holy Spirit Who could inspire ordinary men like Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other authors of the Scriptures, and, keep them from error; this same Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, could have kept error from entering the Church that Christ founded?
Why did the Holy Spirit lose the power to keep mere men from committing error, when it came to keeping the Faith true to the teachings of Christ?
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:31AM
Remember who the Prophets were preaching to - they were the ONLY guys who were in line, more or less, in their time.
Same with the NT authors. Most of the NT letters were written to churches with PROBLEMS, not ones that had it right.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 10:01AM
Ryan,
I don't understand your point.
Would you please elaborate?
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 10:53AM
The Holy Spirit inspired individual people in the OT - particularly David and the Prophets. They were over, or spoke to, God's Chosen people.
Who were the biggest screw-ups in the land. The Holy Spirit didn't prevent the masses of the Hebrews from running after other gods, or falling into meaningless ceremony.
The same could be said for early Christians. The Holy Spirit - Who is in all Christians - didn't prevent all the errors that were going on in Corinth, or Phillippi, or Ephesus, hence the need for Paul to write letters to them.
It's not that the Holy Spirit doesn't have the power to prevent; it's about Christians allowing the Holy Spirit to continue its work of sanctification (a process) after justification (a one-time act).
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 2:45PM
Ryan,
I agree with you. The Holy Spirit does not keep individuals from sinning, unless we ask. We all have free will.
But, the Holy Spirit did keep errors from creeping into the Scriptures. We all agree on that point. You know Satan was trying to corrupt the Word of God.
So, why wouldn't the Holy Spirit keep errors from creeping into the teachings that Christ passed on to the Apostles, who then passed them on to their disciples, and so on? The fact that we all believe Saint Paul had to correct some of the churches he established shows the Holy Spirit kept errors out of the early Church. Why would the Holy Spirit stop protecting the Church?
We surely don't have all of Saint Paul's letters. Nor, could all of the churches Paul established have been teaching errors. The Church wouldn't have spread like it did, if the Apostles, by the power of God, hadn't been good teachers.
I ask again, why would Christ go through all the trouble, if the Church was going apostatize by A.D. 155? Or earlier. Have you ever read the Didache?
And what about the things that aren't in the Bible? What do the Scriptures say about in vitro fertilization? Or, embryonic stem cell research? Or, nuclear weapons? Do not different churches have different answers?
Saint Paul said, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." - Ephesians 4:5
There are over 35,000 Christian faiths in the world today. I don't think this was Christ's plan. I am reminded of the last line in the Book of Judges: "In those days there was no king in Israel: but every one did that which seemed right to himself."
Ryan| 2.7.11 @ 8:35AM
I don't think that the Apostles erred - at least in what they put on paper and we read today in the Canon.
They did screw up occasionally - even Peter, who Paul called to account at one point.
But we are human, and we get things wrong. Hence the reason for division and disagreement, and the need for clarification.
I'm not all that down on different denominations. If you look at two things - one, their strengths, and two, the Promise made to Abraham about his children, then it comes into a little better perspective. God even uses our divisions to spread His Gospel.
Nick| 2.7.11 @ 2:49PM
Ryan,
Then what did Saint Paul mean by "one faith?"
There are over 2 billion Christians in the world. If we all were to decide for oursevles what the Scriptures meant, and what Christ's teachings were, there could be 2 billion faiths, right?
Some people claim they can be Christian and pro-abortion. Who are we to say that they are wrong? By what authority do we tell those people they can't be Christian and also think it is okay to kill unborn babies?
I just ask that you contemplate, prayerfully, when the Church went down the wrong path. As Frisbee's quote of Justin Martyr, above, shows, it had to have been by A.D. 155, because he was teaching the Eucharist was the actual flesh and blood of Christ, as Christ said it was, in chapter 6 of the Gospel of Saint John.
Read the Early Church Fathers, also. They have much to say on how the early Church functioned.
God Bless!
Ryan| 2.7.11 @ 3:12PM
What we believe is not that we get to decide what the Scriptures mean, but that they have an authority in and of themselves. We tell people that abortion is wrong because we see it through diligence and prayer in determining what the Scriptures are saying.
Where we go wrong is in the interpretation of that meaning. We don't - as individuals - get to "decide" what it means, but that's because there is a specific meaning - not because some external agent - ie, the Church - decides the meaning.
The authority is the Scripture - the Word of God written.
Paul - in Ephesians 4 - was addressing the uses of different gifts that we each have as Christians, yet are still unified in Christ. I don't see where he was addressing denomination-type splits here, but he DID address it elsewhere where people were claiming different leaders in I Cor 1, and Paul was essentially saying the same thing about differing doctrinal opinions.
We are all "heirs of the promise" as it were - remember God's promise to Abraham about how many descendants he would have...
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 1:13AM
Ryan,
Then, I would ask again, what do the Scriptures say about the morality of in vitro fertillization, embryonic stem cell research, and possessing, and using, nuclear weapons?
Evanston2| 2.4.11 @ 12:42PM
Frisbee, Interesting point about Zwingli, but my comment wasn't about who was "first" to find Protestant rites invalid. It was simply that Rome has always found them invalid, despite the fact that they quite arguably meet Biblical standards. Rome thinks its interpretation and ceremony are better, fine, I would hope so, do what you believe is right. But to me the best analogy here is to driver's licenses: if you have an Indiana license, you may drive through Illinois. You haven't passed our test but an assumption of competency is granted. But if you choose to reside here permanently, you must pass our test. Rome does not respect the licenses granted by others though they conform with the Word. Rome largely rejects Protestant communion and this part & parcel of its whole "holding the keys" position: if you want real communion with Christ, you must have the Roman eucharist. As I also said, I have found a contempt among Catholic laymen toward communion, to the effect that if it doesn't grant the benefits outlined by Rome (which are speculative) then it's not worth doing. I am not saying that most Catholics hold this position (how would I know?) but there is a holding here toward traditions of men that has at its heart a contempt toward obedience to our Lord. We are commanded to have this rite, so we should do so, regardless of the nature of its benefits. The one reason to hold this rite that we are specifically told is to do this "In remembrance of me" and that should be enough, shouldn't it, for compliance and mutual respect? But perhaps for gents like Clint, if the bread isn't a magic cookie and the wine a spiritual steroid, it's not worth doing? Here's an opportunity to show what is worse: what I say about Romanism, or your personal example of it, Clint.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 2:48PM
Evanston2: Thanks for your comments. Most of my point in bringing up Zwingli was to show that Rome was in a way simply agreeing with protestantism.
I don't know Clint, and am only slowly getting to familiarize with who is who here. It was only in this posting, for example, that I learned Ryan is not a Catholic.
I think your accusation that "Rome thinks its interpretation and ceremony are better, fine, I would hope so, " is not really fair. The issue is one of having valid Holy Orders. The Church has always recognized the validity of the orders and sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox churches.
Protestants did not perpetuate (or even recognize the existence) of Holy Orders. So how can the Church ignore this fact? Holy Orders was instituted by God Incarnate, Himself, in history, upon specific men, and this was passed on specifically by the laying on of hands to other men. For 1500 years, this was undisputed among Christians.
But anyway, I love and appreciate good Protestants. It is way easier and more profitable and even enjoyable discussing issues and finding common ground with people who accept the Bible than with atheist mockers, for example. So I thank you and I thank God for your faith.
Evanston2| 2.8.11 @ 10:37PM
Frisbee, With respect, your contention about "Holy Orders" is a tautology. Essentially Rome invokes its own authority to justify its own authority. Simply put, it is not Biblical: (1) Even if you assume that Peter had a special primacy in his time (despite the primacy of James in the early church among 12 apostles, as recorded in Acts); (2) Nowhere is a special succession to Peter even hinted at (not by John, not by Paul, and of particular note not by Peter himself); (3) Even if we grant that Peter died in Rome, this does not mean that Rome itself has primacy. 1500 years undisputed "among Christians?" Merely question the primacy of Rome and you were labeled a heretic, cut off from society and subject to torture and execution. These "Holy Orders" of ordination have much in common with Islam and nothing in common with the Bible. The Jews claimed Abraham as a father, relying on their lineage. John the Baptist and our Lord told them to repent and do the acts of Abraham, acts of faith. For Rome to claim special privilege in recognizing what rites are correct, with any criteria beyond that established by God's Word, is to claim that your own standards are superior to God's. In sum, it is one thing to believe that your conduct and interpretation of a rite (e.g., eucharist/communion or marriage) is more accurate; it is a blasphemous thing to believe that those rites that conform with God's clearly stated standards are invalid. Look at what happened to Aaron's sons and Eli's sons before you rely on the "laying on of hands" to invent your own standards and invalidate God's.
Frisbee| 2.15.11 @ 9:07PM
Evanston2 wrote: "Even if we grant that Peter died in Rome, this does not mean that Rome itself has primacy. 1500 years undisputed "among Christians?""
Frisbee replies (also with respect): "The 1500 years undisputed" was referring to Holy Orders, not to Petrine primacy. For example, the Orthodox still maintain Holy Orders, from the break of 1053AD until today.
Evanston2 also wrote: "These "Holy Orders" of ordination have much in common with Islam and nothing in common with the Bible."
Frisbee replies: Actually, it is in the bible: "Hence I remind you to rekindle the gift of God that is within you through the laying on of my hands" (2 Tim 1:6). Catholics and Orthodox have been doing this for 2000 years, I repeat: undisputed for the first 1500.
Evanston2| 2.15.11 @ 11:15PM
Frisbee, It's interesting how you separate Holy Orders (laying on of hands -- thanks, been over it endlessly with Nick regarding its efficacy) and the claim to the Primacy of Peter. I agree that these are separate intellectually, but are they practically? Does not the authority of "the Church" rely on the laying on of hands back to Peter?
My point, if unclear, was that the Orthodox object to the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. You repeat: "Undisputed." I guess I misunderstood the break with the Orthodox, or the Copts or smaller sects for that matter. Or did I?
Regarding Islam, the connection I asserted was that if you "disputed" with Rome, "you were labeled a heretic, cut off from society and subject to torture and execution." So you may claim that Rome's authority was undisputed. I doubt that even the records of "the Church" match your contention.
But thank you for writing with clarity, it's a nice change after Nick's distortion of my writing and casual (and honestly, careless and cavalier) treatment of Scripture.
Frisbee| 2.16.11 @ 2:51PM
Evanston2 wrote: "I agree that these are separate intellectually, but are they practically?"
Yes. The Orthodox are precisely a case in point. They have had valid Holy Orders without the pope for almost 1000 years. All you need (to propagate valid orders through the generations) is one bishop. This is what was was undisputed (by Catholics, Copts, and Orthodox) for 1500 years. Rome's authority was disputed in the first 1500 years. Holy Orders were not.
Oh, okay, so I understand you were saying the harshness of Rome was "like" Islam. Thanks for clarifying. Men can abuse their authority. That does not give us an excuse to reject their office. Matthias received the office of Judas. Jesus said scandal will come. Don't let evil men cause you to despise offices created by Jesus.
You ask: "Does not the authority of "the Church" rely on the laying on of hands back to Peter?"
I reply: Strictly speaking, no. The Apostles received their apostleship/authority/episcopacy/office directly and individually from Jesus Christ. They have the power to hand this on in perpetuity, whether they are united with Peter or not.
You ask: "I guess I misunderstood the break with the Orthodox, or the Copts or smaller sects for that matter. Or did I?"
It is a complex and painful history, but well worth knowing. The Copts rejected the council of Chalcedon (and its Pope) because they thought it advocated two persons in Christ. (It didn't.) (To this day, the Egyptians have their own "Pope", presently Shenouda I think.) East and West split and reconciled several times, starting about 600 years after Chalcedon. I think the east still talks about a "primacy of honor" for the Petrine office. The most recent formal reconciliation between east and west was between Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Athens, in 1965. The Maronites (Lebanese) are an interesting case because they were totally isolated, surrounded by Islam, for 500 years and did not partake in any of the splits.
I am learning a lot right now from Orthodox historian and philosopher David Bentley Hart. You and Nick would both enjoy his review of the "new atheist" literature here:
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....-it-or-not
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 2:53PM
Evanston2,
You are just wrong about this.
The Catholic Church accepts Protestant baptism and marriage. It will accept married Anglican clergy and ordain them deacons and priests.
The Church can't accept Protestant communion because it is not the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. Christ is only Truly Present in the Eucharist of the Mass of the Catholic Church.
It is not contempt. It is simply what we believe.
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 3:59PM
If the Catholic church recognizes Protestand mrriate (which I'm not debating, I'm not Catholic) why would my Catholic groom's man have to seek permission from his priest before he could serve in my wedding ceremony? It may be that it's a one off event and not really explanitory... but if it is a normal practice... why? It seems odd that one man need to seek permission from another man to serve in a Holy event as the union of a man and a woman under God in accordance to His will.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 4:53PM
YeloStalyn,
Because the Church wants to be sure that a Catholic is not participating in, or witnessing, a wedding where, one of the two getting married, is a Catholic who is not getting married in the Church.
Or, that the couple is not getting "married" out in the woods and invoking Gaia and the stars, along with Christ.
Those are two instances that popped into my head.
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 5:07PM
Fair enough... but that raises another question. If the Protestant wedding is recognized by Catholics, and if Protestants are Christians, and if their faith is recognized by the Catholic church... why can't a Catholic marry in a Protestant church to a Protestant? Do we have the plague? Are we not good enough? I say these questions with a bit of tongue in cheek... but still?
And just to be clear... I am in no way attempting to undermind or argue against Catholicism. I am merely attempting to understand it more.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 5:49PM
@Yelo
"Why can't a Catholic marry in a Protestant church to a Protestant? "
A Catholic can get married to a Protestant in a Protestant church. And no, you don't have cooties.
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 6:03PM
I don't have cooties?!? Can you tell my wife, please?
Anyhoo... going home. Work time is OVER!!
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 6:49PM
Ted,
The marriage might be licit, but it would not be valid. A Catholic must get married in front of a priest according to the rites of the Church.
Otherwise, you would not be in communion with the Church and would have to be reconciled.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 6:52PM
YeloStalyn,
No problem. I have taken no offense, and do not mind arguing theology. I hope that I, and other Catholics here, can answer your questions.
God Bless!
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 7:44PM
YeloStalyn asks : "why can't a Catholic marry in a Protestant church to a Protestant?"
The Church requires her members to have their marriages witnessed, by the church. My brother was married to a Lutheran girl in a Lutheran church, with a Catholic priest present to witness it. Not sure how canonically correct that was, but it was done.
Also, in the case of marriage, the Church distinguishes between sacramental and non-sacramental marriages, and it makes a huge difference whether both spouses are baptized or not.
Evanston2| 2.8.11 @ 11:00PM
Nick, Exactly how was I "wrong about this?" You made my point: Rome does not believe that Protestant rites rites are valid. Just look at what you've said about the Eucharist and marriage. Rome believes it has extra-Biblical authority to invalidate Protestant rites whenever it so wishes. Despite the fact that these rites fully follow God's prescription in the Bible. Now, I never used the word "contempt" to describe Rome's position. So, choose a noun of your own to describe the imposition of traditions of men to invalidate God's law. Our Lord said a lot about this, and those who rely on their lineage from Abraham as the basis for their authority. What happens to those who have contempt for God?
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 1:07AM
Evanston2,
You are correct. I assumed that when you used the word invalid, you meant that the Catholic Church does not recognize Protestant marriages at all. Not in the technical way the Church uses invalid to distinguish those marriages from illicit ones. If this is what you really meant, then I apologize. I was wrong.
To be clear, the Catholic Church recognizes Protestant marriages as licit, as long as the man and woman were both consenting, knew the commitment they were making, and were lawfully able to wed. They are just not in communion with the Catholic Church.
Now, you know we don't consider this an "extra-Biblical authority." We believe Christ gave Simon Cephas (Rock in Aramaic, Petros in Greek, Peter in English) this authority when He gave Cephas the "keys to the kingdom" and the power to "bind and loose" in Saint Matthew's Gospel.
You referred to it as "part & parcel of [Rome's] whole 'holding the keys' position" in your previous comment, above, so I assume you are familiar with the argument.
Catholics claim Biblical authority to teach what the Apostles taught, i.e. Tradition, by both word and letter, as Saint Paul wrote in his second letter to the Church in Thessalonica. This authority was granted by Christ.
"Rome's position," as you put it, and the Catholic laymen's position is the same. That is why I wrote, "It is not contempt. It is simply what we believe."
But, to clearify, a Catholic believes that the bread and wine actually become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus Christ. We believe that this Transubstantiation only happens at a Catholic Mass; by the hands of an ordained priest, or bishop, who is in communion with the Catholic Church; according to the prayers, and rubrics, established by the Apostles; and that the recipient must be in a State of Grace, i.e. forgiven of all sin, to receive the Eucharist.
Catholics are the only Christians who believe all these things. So, it is not contempt of Protestant communion to believe they are not receiving Christ, Truly Present, in the Eucharist.
Any lay Catholic that would show contempt of Protestant communion is not being very Christian, in my view.
I believe Protestants are sincere in their beliefs. As I once heard it expressed by a Catholic convert, "If the Christian faith were like a menu at a restaurant, we believe Catholics have the full menu, while Protestants only have certain parts of the menu."
We believe Protestants are missing the best things on the menu, and wish they could only know what they are missing.
God Bless!
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 11:51PM
Oh yeah, two more things.
The Catholic Church recognizes any baptism that uses water and baptizes "in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit," as it is written in the Scriptures. So, you were wrong about that.
And, the "laying on of hands" is clearly a Biblical requirement for Holy Orders and Confirmation.
Evanston2| 2.10.11 @ 1:41AM
Nick, With respect, you're not saying anything new. Just like last time, you're reiterating Roman beliefs which I already know. I make a specific charge (like Rome's declaring Protestant communion as invalid) and you merely provide more details which have no bearing. Like Protestant marriage being licit -- that is, legal. So what? Rome isn't the government, as much as it may wish to be. The point is that Protestants conform with the Bible but that is not enough for Rome. As you say regarding the Eucharist, that those who do not share your concepts from Greek philosophy "are not receiving Christ." Your appeal to "Tradition" is the whole point. You have this in common with the Pharisees: you put your tradition above God's clear Word regarding communion and the institute of marriage. You cite ceremonial "laying on of hands" as a "Biblical requirement" (true) as if it guarantees efficacy (false) in bequeathing God's true anointing. The Bible does not show this, otherwise the Jewish priesthood would have been right to crucify Jesus. After all, they had passed on their priestly authority with the traditional laying on of hands. And so Rome looks to its own hands instead of using fidelity to God's Word as The Measure of true apostolic succession. As He left them, our Lord told the apostles "If you love me you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). [For more on apostolic succession, see my answer to Frisbee, above] Further, your response includes details like variations on The Rock in other languages, as if this exercise adds meaning. If you wish, I can write my next answer in Latin (it's been a while, but 4 years in high school, including state competitions) and I suspect I've had more Greek etymology than you. So what. Does that add anything beyond what we already know from the Bible? Even if you assume Peter's primacy from Matt 16:16 (arguable, but not validated in Acts nor mentioned by Peter, Paul, or John), the succession tradition after he died is what I've clearly questioned here and your answer is to tell me that tradition is traditional. Wow. A Biblical answer eludes you. Like when I pointed out that praying to the dead is expressly forbidden by God, you ask me if Protestants ask living people to pray for them. Quit kidding yourself, you only know how to grab a Bible to grab a snippet to support you, and when God speaks against you...you close the book and cry out "Tradition!" If my tradition is against God, it's equally sinful. But somehow, I dunno, I think praying to the dead and talking to the living are different things. Even if God didn't differentiate between the 2 paths of communication, I would hope basic logic would tell you this. But again, the Bible didn't serve your cause so you abandoned it. So I'll repeat my original conclusion which you have fully shown to be true:
"In sum, Rome does not view Protestant obedience to the Bible as sufficient, nor do many laymen. So Rome uses the Bible when convenient but relies ultimately on its own authority on this matter, as it does on all others."
Nick| 2.10.11 @ 1:50PM
Evanston2,
How can I say anything new? I'm a Roman Catholic. Yes, I'm reiterating what has been passed down for almost two thousand years.
But, your claim that Catholics are not following the Scriptures is false. What are the Biblical requirements for marriage? The difference between licit and valid marriage is whether the marriage is allowed in the first place and whether it is communion with the Church. How does that violate the Scriptures?
The Church's appeals to Tradition come straight from Saint Paul, as I've stated (2 Thess 2:15.) Tradition and God's Word never contradict each other.
The laying on of hands is not ceremonial, it is the physical representation of a supernatural reality: The gift of the Holy Spirit. Just like baptism, but distinct from it (Acts 8:14-17; 19:2-6.) So, Holy Orders and Confirmation are fidelity to God's Word.
What about Aramaic? Christ didn't speak Latin or Greek, so your offer is moot. Christ renamed Simon bar Jonah, Cephas, i.e. Rock. Saint Peter was thee Rock on which Christ built His Church. (Also, when God renames somebody, it is significant, like Abram into Abraham and Jacob into Israel.)
Saint Peter's primacy IS shown in Acts, by the way. First, Simon Cephas leads the Apostles in choosing a successor for Judas (Acts 1:15-26.) (This confirms that offices were to filled upon the death of the office holder, proving Apostolic succession.) Cephas also leads the Council of Jerusalem and declares the Church's teaching regarding the Gentiles and circumcision (Acts 15:6-21.) Also, Cephas is always listed first in any list of the 12 Apostles.
And, again, you are twisting my statements. I explained, quite clearly, that Catholics do not pray to the dead, as in worship them. We ask the Saints in Heaven to pray for us, just as we ask the living to do so. Could you remind me again where exactly does God forbid this practice in the Scriptures?
So, your conclusion is "just plain wrong on this," as I stated originally.
Evanston2| 2.11.11 @ 2:16AM
Nick, Try, for once, to listen. When you say I am wrong, your reply needs to controvert (at least in part) what I said. Instead you speed read and write knee-jerk responses. For example, I said "Just like last time, you're reiterating Roman beliefs which I already know." That is, beliefs that are new to me. But you say that your beliefs date back 2,000 years. No kidding. My point was that (1) you incorrectly assume I am ignorant, and (2) the points you make do not at all controvert what I said.
This is how it's done. You say that "communion with the Church" is a Biblical requirement for a marriage rite. Yet when our Lord addressed the issue of divorce, He said that God established marriage for all mankind (Mark 10:7). I repeat, you declare that no marriage exists unless Rome recognizes the rite? That's anti-Biblical and anti-God.
You cite 2 Thess 2:15 as a Biblical basis for your tradition. In this verse, Paul is reiterating things he told the Thessalonians specifically, in person and in writing. Yet you're using it as a blank check to fill in any tradition you wish! And Catholics like you evidently cite Paul to then ignore him! Like celibacy of clergy: Paul describes the ideal in 2 Tim 3:1-5 as a family man, but Rome chooses to ignore Paul's actual instructions here, right? You ask for Traditions that directly contradict Scripture. Examples: those regarding Mary and Purgatory directly contradict the Bible's statements that Christ was the only sinless person ever (Rom 3:23), that He alone pays for our sins (Col 1:13-14, Eph 1:7, Rom 3:24).
I pointed out to you that the laying on of hands is not necessarily an indicator of a spiritual reality as you assert, but you ignored my Biblical citation of what happened to the Jews. You compound this by asserting that authority vested in the Apostles alone (as the Foundation of the church in Eph 2:20) can be passed along. You're essentially saying that you are adding to the Foundation every time you lay on hands! Put another way, Rome asserts that those in what is claimed as Peter's seat are also the Foundation.
So, you assert that "Holy Orders and Confirmation" automatically impart fidelity to God's Word. Your comparison to baptism applies: yes, it is an outward symbol but no, not necessarily efficacious (see 1 John 2:19 and James 2:17-26). See also 1 Tim 5:22, where Paul instructs Timothy not to be too hasty to lay on hands. Could it be that if you do so unwisely you get bad results? Yes, but you have asserted otherwise, haven't you, Nick? And since you're proud of your 2,000 years of tradition why don't you read Augustine regarding the visible (baptized) church versus the actual (invisible) church?
My point about Latin was that your providing additional names in other languages about Peter was a display of irrelevant info that again assumed ignorance on my part. I know the Biblical importance of all the re-naming you mention. But you abuse it when you take this re-naming and then make a huge leap in saying that all of Peter's authority (whatever it may have been) is given to Rome.
No doubt, Peter is very important person, but when we see the early church in action the leader is James the half-brother of Christ. We see Paul opposing Peter to the face when he is in sin (Gal 2:11). When Paul talks about his qualifications to be an apostle in Gal 1 & 2, he stresses how he did not receive his knowledge or authority from man but from Christ. He mentions Peter as a key player, but also James and John. Nowhere, anywhere (including Peter's letters) does anyone assert that Peter has primacy over the entire church nor especially that he could hand this down. It seems all the NT writers were negligent, eh? It's so good, isn't it, for Rome to tell us that its traditions are authoritative. And where must it point to for this assertion? Its traditions. Appealing to tradition to justify appealing to tradition: a pathetic tautology. But I understand why Rome clings desperately to this claim: without it, it could not claim so many super-powers.
Let's review in detail the Bible passages you cited. Acts 1 only shows that Peter identified a problem (that they should replace Judas). Notably, Psalms is quoted as the authority for validating that this is a problem, not Peter's say-so. Nowhere does it show Peter leading the process, nor making the decision himself. This actually undermines your position. Acts 15? Dude, can you read??? 15:13 says "After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me." 15:19-21 is James' judgment, not Peter's.
Yes, Peter is listed first among the Disciples and Apostles and clearly was a leader both before and after Christ's death. But that's not Rome's claim: it is that Peter has primacy. As I've mentioned, Paul instructs Timothy in 1 Tim 5 about laying on of hands. So there is a Pauline line of authority. Paul clearly had a separate jurisdiction from Peter (Jews for Peter, gentiles for Paul per Gal 2:7) and Paul reports his results in Acts 21 to James. What about from Philip (Acts 8:12,13 & 38) or John? Yet you assert, in the face of all this, that Peter had primacy and passed this on, as if the Orthodox and others (Copts, for example) have no competing claims to lineage.
I did not twist your statements regarding praying to the dead. You have quite clearly said that it is not the same as praying to God. So what. God calls communication with the dead an abomination in Deut 18:11-12. I'm not surprised that you lack the Bible skills to find this. The prohibition is also validated by what happened to Saul in 1 Sam 28 & 31.
Just plain wrong? Thanks for the entertainment.
Nick| 2.11.11 @ 6:31PM
Evanston2,
You seem to be getting agitated by our conversation concerning Our Lord, Jesus Christ, the Personification of Love. This should not happen between brothers in Christ, agreed? As for "speed reading," and all that, I could say the same for you. Physician, heal thyself.
I have become aware, through more reading, that my original statement, "You are just wrong about this," was, in fact, correct. I was wrong, in my response to Ted, about the difference between licit and valid marriages. It has been a few years since I've read about this particular subject. You, however, were also wrong in your use of the word valid, when you wrote, "Rome does not believe that Protestant rites rites[sic] are valid."
A marriage between two validly bapitzed people is both valid and sacremental. If a validly baptized Protestant couple converts to the Catholic faith, the Church does not require them to get married again, because She already considers them married.
In the example Ted gave, the Church wouldn't recognize the marriage of a Catholic to a Protestant as licit, no matter where they were married, unless a dispensation was given. So, technically, Ted was correct, if the couple had permission. For all the legalities, see this link to Canon Law:
http://webcache.googleusercont.....google.com
My apologies, for all the confusion.
I assume your church doesn't allow divorced, and remarried, people to receive communion, correct? They are adulterers (even if divorced for unchastity,) according to the teaching of Christ and Saint Paul: "But to them that are married, not I, but the Lord, commands that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, that she remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife (1 Cor. 7:10-11.) (emphasis mine)
(cf Matthew 19:3-12; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11–12; Rom. 7:2–3)
"What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder." (Matthew 19:6)
Evanston2| 2.12.11 @ 12:05AM
Nick, "So, technically, Ted was correct, if the couple had permission." "Unless a dispensation was given." "If a validly baptized Protestant couple converts to the Catholic faith."
I have some family experience in this regard, but it dates to the 1970s. So explain to me: if I fail to get "permission" or a "dispensation" or to convert "to the Catholic faith" then is my entering into marriage, an institution created by God, defective? Evidently it is, for you.
By the way, when I use the word "valid" or any other non-theological term, its meaning is from ordinary daily English. Since we are supposedly "brothers" I would hope you would extend the courtesy of letting me use normal words with their normal meaning instead of requiring me to employ your own highly specialized and often arcane lexicon.
Nick| 2.12.11 @ 12:28AM
Evanston2,
Stop with the speed reading and read what I wrote.
A marriage between two validly bapitzed people (most Protestants are validly baptized) is both valid and sacremental.
The Catholic Church does not invalidate the Protestant marriage rite, as you wrongly claimed. Is that clear enough?
You didn't correct me when I stated that I thought you were making the Catholic distinction between valid and licit when it came to marriage. Why are you berating me for it now?
I notice that you didn't address my question about whether or not divorced, and remarried, people are allowed to participate in your communion.
Evanston2| 2.12.11 @ 8:03PM
Nick, Well, I apologize. Using your meaning of the word, Rome does not "invalidate" marriages. The word I used most recently, after you backtracked, is "defective." More on that in the closing paragraph.
FYI, the word is "sacramental" with an "a' in the middle (not an "e").
When you first mentioned "licit" this was my response (on the 10th):
"Like Protestant marriage being licit -- that is, legal. So what? Rome isn't the government, as much as it may wish to be."
So I did question you regarding the relevance of your schema. Next time I'll just berate you, if that's what you prefer. Although I would hardly call it "berating" when I simply ask you for a courtesy -- to grant that when I write a common word that I mean it in the way normal people do.
You're right, I didn't address your question about divorce, remarriage, and communion. Let's keep it simple, shall we? We don't use communion the way you do: if someone wishes to partake, he/she can. The rite includes Paul's words about partaking in an unworthy manner. "Let a person examine himself" (1 Cor 11:28). From verse 31 I would take this examination to be about personal sin. Am I right in saying that you are supposed to engage in Confession regularly in conjunction with the Eucharist? Feel free to explain.
So, it's entirely possible that someone could partake unworthily (that is, not repentant about sin) but Protestants don't try to deny communion. We remind partakers that instead of blessing they will reap judgement (verses 29-30).
Abuse of marriage is the treated with the same process as that applied to other sin. Matt 18:15-20 lays out the due process. We "disfellowship" members and if they show up again we tell them to meet with the Elders before attempting to attend again. But we do not physically bar people from attending or partaking, too disruptive and potentially dangerous. My church often takes the step of phoning other churches when we find out that folks we kicked out are attending there: we inform them of the nature of the sin and our attempts to obtain reconciliation.
Just like within Romanism, where you don't have a permission slip to partake of the Eucharist, most churches do not grill people over their prior marriages. So you can church hop and pretend to yourself that you're OK.
If we find out a Christian was previously in a marriage with another Christian, but has remarried, we believe it is too late and will not urge them to compound the sin by dumping their new wife/husband. But if they haven't remarried, at least at my church, we urge them to give their marriage another try. However, per 1 Cor 7:12-15 if the (by definition) unbelieving spouse refuses to reconcile, then God has called that person "to peace." In the case of spousal abuse, if the perpetrator is unrepentant (in action, not just words) then we do not urge reconciliation indefinitely. Put plainly, we don't believe you can beat your wife regularly (or engage in any other persistent pattern of sin) and be a Christian.
So, we don't have an elaborate system of annulment, etc. Is that what you're looking for? Because even if you believe it is preferable to have such, a marriage that complies with the Bible is a marriage. Period. Our problem today, as it has always been, is in regard to sex outside of marriage (Heb 13:4). Christ called us to honor our marriages, but if the spouse is unfaithful then we are free (Matt 5:32 & Matt 19:10).
Going backwards, who will we marry? If you're not a church member you can't marry in ours. We don't restrict our pastors, though: if 2 non-Christians want to marry, we let them perform the service if they wish. Again, we believe that the marriage rite (one man, one woman) is for all mankind, as Christ explained to the Pharisees. What we will deny is a Christian marrying a non-Christian (per OT practices and 2 Cor 6:14) and that is determined based on pre-marriage counseling, which is standard procedure.
Overall, if you're asserting that Protestant marriages should meet Biblical standards, we agree. Nor do I believe that Rome should compromise its standards when it marries its own members. You can use whatever scheme you like to categorize them (valid, licit, etc). But this all goes back to Rome's authority, doesn't it? If Rome asserts that there is a special blessing associated with its marriage rite (which I believe it does) that are not conferred by a Protestant wedding, this obviously means that Protestant rites are defective. Feel free to quibble about the word "defective" -- we all need a hobby.
Nick| 2.13.11 @ 1:38PM
Evanston2,
I'm glad we could clear that up. And, if we are going to resort to the pettiness of correcting each other's typos, the period goes on the inside of the parenthesis, I believe. I'm no grammarian, though.
Receiving the Sacrament of Pennance frequently is strongly reccomended, but not required to receive the Eucharist. One must be in a State of Grace, i.e. free from the guilt of mortal sin, to consume the Eucharist. So, if someone commits a mortal sin, one is required to make a good confession, an act of contrition, and an act of pennance before one can receive the Eucharist again. I won't get into the difference between mortal and venial sins, unless you're interested?
My point was not to see if, or how, you deny people communion, nor if you grant decrees of nullity (annulment is not the proper term.)
My point was to show that although you claim that your church only follows God's Word, it, in fact, does not. And, you have shown this to be the case, yet again.
You freely admit that your church is perfectly willing to accept a remarried Christian, somone actively committing adultery, because "we believe it is too late and will not urge them to compound the sin by dumping their new wife/husband."
Your church IS compounding the sin, by not rebuking it. These couples are defying Christ's command not to get remarried, and are in a sinful relationship, endangering their souls to eternal damnation.
You didn't specify if a couple, who were married in your church, are allowed to get a divorce? If they are allowed to divorce, are they allowed to "remarry?"
For the sake of argument, I will grant that the exception in Matthew 19:9 be translated as "unchastity," if your church does allow divorce in accordance with v.9. I won't get into the difference between the Greek porneia and moichaomai here, I dealt with that somewhere else in this thread.
You mentioned spousal abuse as a criteria for not urging reconciliation indefinitely. Does this mean your church would allow remarriage in this situation? What about just a divorce? If physical abuse is grounds for divorce in your church, then how are you following the "unchastity" exception from Matthew 19:9?
In the Catholic Church a married couple is also urged to reconcile their differences. If the problem is severe, e.g. adultery, beatings, withholding the marital act, and the one comitting the sinful act will not repent, then separation is allowed. If the offending party still will not repent and reconcile, and a division of property is needed, then a civil divorce can be allowed. The non-offending party is still in communion with the Church, and can still receive the sacraments.
But, they cannot get married again. Unless, a decree of nullity were granted (which states the two were never married in the first place,) or the offending spouse dies. The subsequent sinful actions committed by one of the spouses have no bearing on whether, or not, a decree of nullity is granted.
Also, the Catholic Church does not perform or marry the couple. Nor, does the priest, or any other church for that matter. The Sacrament of Matrimony is celebrated between the man and woman and God. The couple makes solemn vows to each other and to God. The priest, and the others in attendance, are just public witnesses to the marriage. The priest is there to preside over the Mass.
The same goes for Protestant marriages. Whatever "rite" they use is not germane. There is no "special blessing" to be had. As long as the man and woman are validly baptized, they are validly married. Period. The Catholic Church finds nothing "defective" about it.
Evanston2| 2.13.11 @ 9:57PM
Thanks for the answer.
Nick| 2.14.11 @ 2:31PM
Evanston2,
What? No answers to my questions?
Evanston2| 2.15.11 @ 1:13AM
Are you really asking questions? I asked about a "special blessing" from the sacrament of matrimony. Per question 142 on this link, it increases "sanctifying grace in the soul."
http://www.jesus-passion.com/s.....church.htm
You're not doing your homework in answering mine. Any answer I write will be accorded the same level of care -- given the worst possible interpretation (often invented out of thin air). I have consistently stated the same points since my earliest comments to Frisbee and Ted, backing them up with Scripture. I have tried to keep "on topic" but your comments and questions are most often irrelevant regarding whether something is/not commanded by God. Just carry on the way you're going.
Frisbee| 2.15.11 @ 9:21PM
Hi Evanston2: Won't it always come back to the question: "Who has the authority to definitively and bindingly interpret scripture?"?
Is there such an authority in the church? Was there ever? When Jesus said to certain men "what you bind on earth is bound in heaven" and "whose sins you forgive they are forgiven", did he really mean "scripture interprets scripture"?
Evanston2| 2.15.11 @ 11:01PM
Frisbee, Christ Himself shows us how to quote Scripture accurately. As do all the apostolic letters. They frequently quote the OT. Obviously OT prophets did not quote other prophets as much (there was less "material" to work with, as it were) . Still, did not God create us? Is He really unable to communicate effectively with His creatures? Themes that are important are repeated throughout the OT and NT. God often uses parallelism to instruct us -- either synonymous (repeating the same basic notion twice in a row) or antithetical (showing opposites). Most assuredly I agree that teaching is a special office (because, after all, Scripture says so) but nowhere does the Bible say that normal people should not learn it or apply it. Quite the contrary, in fact: ignorance of God's Word always brings destruction in the OT and Christ, in one example of many, says "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it" (Luke 8:21).
This may seem a bit harsh, but I believe reliance on clergy is a cop-out, or worse. Put another way, people who rely on clergy to know the Word -- leaving us just to do it --have a faith in clergy. "Sola Magisterium."
I know this is an assertion, so here is some Biblical backup: in the OT rebellion against God frequently involved creating a new clergy. The northern kingdom did so. Judges 18 shows a household doing so. In the NT, Jesus warns us about false prophets to come, and sadly so must most of the apostles in their letters. How can we spot a false teacher? Acts 17:11 provides an example, with the Bereans are praised for checking the Scriptures daily to see if what they were told was true.
Allow me to draw a contrast concerning "The Rock." Paul criticizes some Corinthians for saying they are "of Cephas" (or of Apollo or of Paul: 1 Cor 1:12). You, Frisbee, appeal to Matt 16:19. That verse doesn't elaborate on what Jesus meant, so are we stuck? No, Matt 18:18 uses the same phrase ("bind on earth...") and provides a surprisingly quick, but very effective, outline for church discipline and forgiveness. This is clearly what is being discussed since the preceding parable is about recovering "Lost Sheep" Cephas himself asks in verse 21 about how many times, when confronted with discipline, that the church should forgive. I believe forgive means welcome back into their company. Why? Look at v. 17. The punishment is to be as a gentile or tax collector, that is, thrown out of their midst. Put another way, the text is clearly not talking about "the church holding the keys to heaven" or analogous claims.
Further (yes, this is an "argument from silence:) Peter, notably, does not ask about how many of God's laws he gets to change. Peter wasn't shy, nor were other apostles who argued about "who would be first" dislike status. If they thought that Jesus' point was that they would be able to waive God's commands or, conversely, add to them, then that would've sparked debate.
You can rightly point to the Jerusalem Council as an early example of how to deal with God's commands to the Jews, but please remember that this was after Peter's vision and subsequent encounter with the centurion in Acts 10. God had provided direct guidance beforehand and the Holy Spirit's confirmation afterward.
My point here is that Christ said in Matt 5:17 that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. After He fulfilled the Jewish ceremonial system, He also informed the disciples about the coming fall of Jerusalem (Luke 19:43-44) and the temple (Matt 24:2). So while the moral law was left intact, the Judaizers were rejected by Paul, eventually by Peter, and the Apostles in Jerusalem.
So if you are "of Cephas"' are you pointing to the right rock? Our Lord tells us in Matt 7:24 "Everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock." How do we fight Satan? Christ shows us, by knowing the Word, per Matt 4 and we are to "live...by every word" per v. 4.
Unconvinced? What is the greatest commandment? To "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your strength and all your mind" (Luke 10:27). Your mind. All of it. Obviously both time and our mental capabilities are limited, but I trust in the same God who has changed my heart and promises to save me eternally that He communicates clearly to all of us. And I repeat, teaching offices are clearly a division of labor established by Scripture, but this does not absolve any of us from knowing God's Word with our minds (though we all fall infinitely short of this obligation, as we do in all others, and need His infinite mercy). See Deut 6:7 and Is 28:9-10 regarding teaching to children and Ps 119:42-48, 105, 129-141, 159-160 to be a man after God's own heart.
Overall, I believe the binding/loosing passage is radically distorted by those who quite possibly have the most to benefit from this supposed authority. And they use this supposed authority to say that this is the proper interpretation. And many laymen like sitting back, doing the ceremonies to "save" and "cleanse" and then get on with their lives untouched. This is certainly not a fault with Roman Catholicism alone, but it is (in my personal experience) often an egregious example.
Sorry for the length of this response, but it's obviously an important question and a key dividing line within the greater church.
Frisbee| 2.16.11 @ 6:00PM
Evanston2 wrote: "Frisbee, Christ Himself shows us how to quote Scripture accurately."
Christ is the Word. Every Word He spoke was the Word of God, whether someone wrote them down or not. He taught the Apostles directly, and spoke to most others in parables. I'm not sure what you mean that He "shows you how to quote the Scriptures". He did show the Disciples on the Road to Emmaus a lot of the OT. Does He appear to you like that? (I am not being facetious. He can do that, as He did with St Paul.)
Evanston2 wrote: "Sola Magisterium". No, it's never been sola magisterium, because even the Apostles had the OT. You need all three, and they are contained within each other, and they point to eachother: Scripture, and Tradition, and Magisterium.
Evanston2 wrote: "Overall, I believe the binding/loosing passage is radically distorted by those who quite possibly have the most to benefit from this supposed authority."
It is a real power really granted by Christ. It can be abused. These days, though, I think the opposite may be true: too much timidity. In terms of "benefit", I think the power given to forgive sins (and hopefully not retain) is much to my benefit.
Evanston2 wrote: "Matt 18:18 uses the same phrase ("bind on earth...")"
Yes, "binding and losing" is given to all the apostles and to all bishops. But the renaming and the keys were only given to Simon. Also, whereas Satan asked to sift "all of you like wheat", Jesus only prayed for Peter "that your faith will not fail". (The plural and singular show up clearly in the Greek, but not in most English translations.)
Evanston2 wrote: "Christ shows us, by knowing the Word, per Matt 4 and we are to "live...by every word" per v. 4. Unconvinced? "
No, very convinced, "by every word", not just the written word, but the oral word.
www.scripturecatholic.com/oral_tradition.html
At any rate, even if there were no bishops or apostles, no papacy and no Peter, no church at all, and the Bible fell out of the sky, "sola scriptura" would still be a contradiction.
Gotta go for now. Thank you Evanston2 for your very thoughtful and heartfelt input. Let's both continue to follow Jesus as best we can (and better!).
Evanston2| 2.20.11 @ 5:55PM
Frisbee, As you know, Christ was the perfect man. So He, as our example, "shows" us how to use Scripture. He cites the OT. So no doubt He is the Word but also shows us how to be obedient to It.
Thank you for your other comments, though they are largely repetition rather than refutation. This, of course, is not about debating or point-scoring and I definitely can tell from your posts that you are willing to deal with reality. So I, too, thank you for your wrestling with these issues. See you here on AmSpec, sadly, in all likelihood when the next heresy is embraced by so-called "Christians."
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 8:46PM
Evanston2 wrote: "As you know, Christ was the perfect man. So He, as our example".
Yes, and St Paul says "imitate me as I imitate Christ". Christ put men in charge of the church, and those men other men (even after Judas of all men!), and we are obligated to obey them.
Nick| 2.15.11 @ 10:51PM
Evanston2,
I'll take that response to mean that you do allow couples in your church to divorce for other reasons, besides "unchastity." And, possibly to remarry?
Why else would you have ignored my point altogether, i.e. that your church is not following God's Word and His commands, like you accuse all of us Catholics of doing. Or, what about componding the sin of those "remarried couples" who you refuse to rebuke? Why won't you speak God's Truth to them?
And, yes, the Sacrament of Matrimony does give "santifying grace" to the couple. But, as I reiterated, validly baptized Protestants are married in the eyes of God. There is no "special blessing" from the Catholic Church concerning how they got married, i.e. the "rite" that was used, as you stated.
Just like with baptism, which I also repeated several times. You should've read Question 141, from your link to the Baltimore Catechism.
As I started out stating: You are just wrong about this.
Evanston2| 2.15.11 @ 11:32PM
You should take my non-response to mean that you have discredited yourself.
You should be praying about your treatment of Scripture. Further, you should ask Frisbee to read your interpretation of the Catechism, since you respect him. I, personally, do not expect respect (and am very direct and harsh at times) but I simply do not trust you to be honest in your reading of what others say, or responsible with your representation of what "the Church" or Scripture say. Specifically, you should start with your statement about whether Protestant marriages confer "sanctifying grace" or not. If they do not, then you have lied about in there being a special blessing within Roman marriages that Protestants lack.
Finally, I do look forward to your Biblical backup for the infallible claims regarding Mary, as well as Purgatory.
Frisbee| 2.16.11 @ 10:05PM
I'm no expert on marriage, so I can't help you guys much with that.
With regard to purgatory, it is clear to me that this is what St Paul is referring to when he says "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw-- each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done. If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward. If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire." (1: Cor 12-15 RSV)
That last line especially; suffering loss, though being saved, but as through fire - that sounds arguably like purgatory to me.
And the Assumption of Mary is here "And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars". Rev 12:1
Nick| 2.19.11 @ 1:56PM
Evanston2,
When did I write that "Roman marriages" confer a "special blessing" that "Protestants lack?"
"Special blessing" was your term, concerning your claim about what the Catholic Church teaches, not mine.
I think my statement about marriages not being perfomed by any church, should have cleared this up. The only people involved in the Sacrament of Matrimony are the man, the woman, and the witnesses (as this is a public act.) And God, of course.
Nick| 2.11.11 @ 8:09PM
Evanston2,
Your argument regarding 2 Thessalonians, 2:15, does not make any sense, nor is it Biblical.
Why would Saint Paul have teachings that would only apply to the Thessalonians? Were they special? Paul was telling them not believe any reports "purporting to be from us" (v. 2) that the "day of the Lord" had come, because Jerusalem had not yet been destroyed. This applied to the whole Church.
And, if you read the previous verse (v. 14,) "Whereunto also he has called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ," you will see that Saint Paul was clearly referring to the "traditions which you were taught by us" about the Good News of Jesus Christ, i.e. the Gospel, "either by word or letter."
This, taken along with the last words of Saint John, in his Gospel, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written," one can clearly see that everything that Christ taught was not written down.
In the two translations I looked up, Saint Paul says that a bishop should be "the husband of one wife," i.e. he should not be divorced and remarried. Which fits in perfectly with our previous discussion. Neat, huh?
Saint Paul does not require marriage to be a bishop, he forbids a divorced and remarried man from becoming one. Married clergy were allowed by the Church at the time. There are married priests today in the Catholic Church, as I've previously stated, under special circumstances. Priestly celibacy is a rule, not a doctrine or an article of faith.
As for Our Lady and Purgatory, I could list plenty of Biblical verses to explain these teachings, but I don't think you'd like them.
Evanston2| 2.11.11 @ 11:45PM
Nick, You continue to absolutely miss points. Your accusation against me = "Why would Saint Paul have teachings that would only apply to the Thessalonians?" That's not what I said! Seriously, how could you possibly get that from what I wrote?
No kidding, the letters in the Bible apply to the whole church. I live this, you don't. This was my point: "Yet you're using it as a blank check to fill in any tradition you wish!" And you definitely prove it by also appealing to John 21:25. You have 2 options: (1) John wrote what he thought was essential (due to God's inspiration) and is merely saying that you may hear other accurate info elsewhere (example = the other Gospels), or (2) John screwed up and should have added a verse like this: "But don't worry about the stuff I didn't write down regarding what Christ did, because future leaders will tell you, and you should believe whatever they write." John could have even explained this further in his apostolic letters, but no. Curious. Instead, he spends time warning us about heresy, anti-Christs and the like. Or perhaps in Revelation, when he talked about all those churches, he could've added a blurb about the church in Rome having primacy as the one true church, holder of the keys, and "unlimited authority to tell y'all stuff that I didn't." Or something to that effect. Evidently you prefer option (2), that John messed up. And choice #2 makes sense for Rome, after all, it gives you creative license to make up a boatload of stuff.
And even if for a second your interpretation of John 21:25 were plausible, exactly how do "things that Jesus did" justify traditions about Mary? THIS is how you treat God's inspired Word. Quote it when it's convenient, mis-quote it if you have to, change the topic when you're caught.
Like your discussion of celibacy in the clergy. The plain fact is that Paul lays out a model of a man who leads a household and the your model does not. You keep repeating that priests can be married under exceptional circumstances...don't you get it? Your exception proves what you rightly call "the rule." The norm, the model, the ideal, "the rule" -- is at variance with God's inspired Word. When it tells you to do something, you should do it that way to the best of your ability, shouldn't you???
Please list your Mary and Purgatory verses. Cut & paste if you must but try to summarize. Sending links or saying "Read the Didache" as you've done in the past shows that you don't have a particular point to make, you're just shotgunning and hoping to hit something. This has consistently been your method to date and I'm hoping you can actually quote the Bible to support a thesis. It'd be nice for a change.
Nick| 2.12.11 @ 2:24AM
Evanston2,
"That's not what I said! Seriously, how could you possibly get that from what I wrote?"
Here is what you wrote: "In this verse, Paul is reiterating things he told the Thessalonians specifically, in person and in writing."
Yeah, how could I possibly get that from what you wrote. Your interpretation is that Saint Paul is "reiterating" teachings that are specific only to the Church in Thessalonica. The previous verse (v.14) clearly shows that Paul is referring to the Gospel. Your assertion is not proved by God's Word.
Also, I'm not using it as a "blank check." I use tradition to explain things like the definition of the Holy Trinity, the two natures of Christ, which books belong in the Bible, etc.
There is a third option, which happens to be the truth: Saint John wrote his Gospel to fill in the time not covered by the Synoptic Gospels. John would not have wasted expensive papyrus space to explain the everyday practices of the early Church. He did explain, in-depth, the basis for Christ's teaching on the Eucharist, in the sixth chapter of his Gospel.
You are aware that, until the nineteenth century, 99 percent of Christians couldn't read or write. The New Testament was written for the disciples who were taught by the Apostles and appointed to church offices by them. Saint Paul didn't write his letters to be copied and handed out amongst the laymen, to be read privately. His epistles were for the men he appointed as bishops, priests and deacons; so, they could pass the teachings on to the rest of the parish.
I never claimed that John 21:25 justified "traditions about Mary."
It is you who doesn't get it. Saint Paul does not require the clergy to be married. Are you claiming that only married men can be ministers or preachers? Plus, you didn't address my point. What did Paul mean when he wrote that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife?" Does it mean that non-bishops can have more than one wife? Of course not. Your interpretation is different than mine, but, it is still your interpretation.
I'll give you Scripture quotations concerning Our Lady and Purgatory over the weekend, okay?
To prove the Catholic Church's teachings, I have quoted as much Scripture as you have, Evanston2, so enough with the strawmen, alright?
Evanston2| 2.12.11 @ 4:58PM
Nick, I said "specifically" when referring to the things Paul told them. I make that point perfectly clear in the following sentence when I say that you leap from a specific authorization to what he told the Thessalonians to be a "blank check" that you can use to write in anything you wish. That, after all, was your original point -- that this verse authorizes "The Church" to resort to tradition. How clear can this be??? Yet you choose to snip out my words in isolation to create a ludicrous interpretation. This is your witness about who you are.
Your "third option" is self-defeating. You say "John would not have wasted expensive papyrus space to explain the everyday practices of the early Church." Yet you yourself deem these "everyday practices" to be so important that you can nullify Protestant rites. Which is it, important or unimportant?
You mention John 6. I have summarized the details of a Protestant communion rite for you here on this web site. Exactly what details in John 6 make you believe that Rome can deny the efficacy of this rite? Or did John fail to leave out this important detail -- a verse or 2 -- that empowers Rome in this matter?
You are aware that literacy exploded after the Protestant Reformation? Granted, it's a chicken-and-egg question, and you can claim it's related to technology. But after all, why invent a printing press when there's no demand? And you're right, why learn how to read and know God's Word when the wise men in robes will tell you what to do?
Let's examine Rome's actual historic practice. Why have the Mass in Latin? Sure, standardization is nice. But how many of the people spoke Latin? If your point is that keeping people bound in ignorance was Rome's official policy, I'm convinced.
Your statement about Paul's intent, and that of the other NT writers, is bold. That's putting it nicely. Even if most of the congregation could not read, the Pauline letters were addressed to all the people there. Even private letters like Titus were copied and put into circulation. You have the temerity to say (accurately) in your last remark that letters like Thessalonians were intended for all Christians, and then to turn around and say they were to be known and understood by a select few? I am not denying that the Bible sets forth offices, including teaching. But look at Is 28:10-13 which equates knowing His word line upon line with blessing, and then losing this knowledge as a curse. Look at Genesis where Satan's tool is to mis-quote what God said to Eve. She knew the truth, but was tempted by the distortion. But your model is that when Satan asserts "Did God actually say..." (Gen 3:1) that Eve has no clue? Our Lord is our model. Look at His encounter with Satan in the wilderness. Jesus defends Himself against Satan, not by using supernatural powers but by quoting the Word (Matt 4). Satan tries to distort the Word by prooftexting (that is, taking one quote in isolation, a habit you know well) but Christ shows how knowledge of all the Word is critical. He wins the battle with a reverence for God (countering Satan's assertion that God is obligated to protect us at all times with "not putting Him to the test" and "you shall not put the Lord your god to the test" and "him only shall you serve." Rome's teaching was and is designed to keep people dependent on it. You believe this is right and proper. You do not "live by every word that comes from the mouth of God."
In another comment here you tell me about Christ, "the Personification of Love" to tell me not to speak directly to you about Truth. What Jesus said was so offensive to the religious authorities, who relied on their tradition, that they tortured him to death. I believe the model of love you are trying to impose is that of the World, the milquetoast. Jesus the wimp, who on a crucifix typically looks like a metrosexual, instead of Jesus who will come again in Judgement. Again, during Jesus' first coming He firmly spoke Truth even when (and arguably, because) it was confrontational. Why say something when everybody already agrees? So stop using your personal notion of what love is: Jesus defined it by His words and actions.
You are retreating deeper and deeper into your tradition because you have no Biblical answers.
You have resorted to the old "private interpretation" gambit. It's from 2 Pet 1:20. Read the following verse, 2:1 starts: "But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies." Has Rome used tradition to secretly bring in destructive heresies about Purgatory and Mary, for example?
You say "I never claimed that John 21:25 justified 'traditions about Mary.'" No, you didn't. You quoted 2 Thess to justify your blank check traditions. Then you said "This, taken along with the last words of Saint John, in his Gospel, 'But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written,' one can clearly see that everything that Christ taught was not written down." So I apologize. You can invent new stories about Christ based on this verse, but not new ones about Mary. For that you evidently rely on 2 Thess for your infallible tradition. If it's any comfort, Dan Brown can still use John 21 to justify his Da Vinci Code tradition. I bet the Mormons appeal to that verse, too.
Regarding clergy, you keep hiding behind the word "requirement." The requirement of God is to obey His commands to the best of your ability, not just do the minimum or what you can get away with. Certainly it is not to replace the ideal (or "rule" -- if you will) with your own ideal. But that is exactly what you insist upon, again and again.
I did address your point, as follows: "You keep repeating that priests can be married under exceptional circumstances...don't you get it? Your exception proves what you rightly call 'the rule.'" OK, I'll make it super duper clear for you. Yes, a divorced or never-married man meets the minimum requirement for office. Go ahead, aim for the minimum, dude. But in Bible churches a married man is definitely preferred as the head pastor. Obviously single men out of seminary can be associates but they have no authority beyond that granted to the head pastor (in other words, they are "trainees"). Per 1 Tim 3:4, if a pastor fails to manage his household well or if his children "go south" it is often cause for removal. Same applies to Elders who are not paid ministers.
Regarding Scripture, only you know whether you are handling it with reverence. You definitely are not quoting it as often as I, just review our comments here. That said, multiple quotes are not what matters. If we are talking about personal preferences, we don't need to quote Scripture. You often cite references for Rome regarding your preferences, that's OK. But if you are talking about what God wants, our Lord's encounter with Satan (mentioned above) is a model. We should quote the Word accurately and carefully to support any point. Because when we say that God wants something to be a certain way, we should tremble. You ask elsewhere about divorce and this is an appropriate example. In Matt 19:7 the Pharisees twist what God wants. They assert that since Moses authorized divorce, it is OK with God. But Jesus corrects them, saying "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." An allowance from Moses (or God or whomever) for an exception is not the same as the ideal (or model or "rule") as I have tried (and failed) to persuade you regarding celibacy in the clergy. This bears repeating: regarding personal preferences, we can have all sorts of reasons and an appeal to tradition is certainly better than making up our own thing willy-nilly. Scripture is entirely different. The words "sacred" or "holy" apply. When I quote Scripture, I pray that I do so with a Godly fear, and do it faithfully.
Nick| 2.16.11 @ 2:00AM
Evanston2,
And you criticize me for getting off topic? Again, physician, heal thyself.
Instead of listing everything you've gotten wrong in your post, I will use the following example to show that you are either speed reading, or mis-reading, or deliberately distorting what I've written.
"You have the temerity to say (accurately) in your last remark that letters like Thessalonians were intended for all Christians, and then to turn around and say they were to be known and understood by a select few?"
Here is what I wrote: "His epistles were for the men he appointed as bishops, priests and deacons; so, they could pass the teachings on to the rest of the parish."
Did you stop reading half way through? Or, is this just a mistake?
My point was that Saint Paul's letters were mostly written to address a problem in the church at the time. They were sent to the bishop he had appointed over that church. The bishop's job was to convey Paul's teaching to all of the church's members. The same goes for the letters of Saints Peter, John, and James. They were also for later Christian generations.
So, the letters do address historical events happening within the church to which they were written, e.g. heresy, persecution, fighting among church members. But, their foundations all rest on the Gospel, as taught by Christ to the Apostles.
In 2 Thessalonians, chapter 2, Saint Paul is clarifying the teaching concerning the coming of the Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem (cf Matthew 24, the Little Apocalypse.) But, when he tells them to "stand firm and hold to the traditions" that he, Silvanus, and Timothy taught them, he is clearly talking about the whole Gospel (v. 14,) both written and spoken. All that Christ did, could not all be written down, as Saint John said.
What was this "specific authorization" you claim Paul was specifically teaching, by word, to the Thessalonians, Evanston2?
I am not using this verse to "authorize" the Church to do anything it wants, by the way. I'm using these two Scriptures to show that everything the early Church did and taught was not written down. The Catholic Church appeals to both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to prove its teachings. To accomplish this, She uses the Old and New Testaments, and the writings of the early Church Fathers.
You are aware that there weren't any New Testament writings for at least a decade after Christ's Ascension, right?
So, when Saints Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles, set up a church, and then left; the bishop, whom they had appointed over it, only had the traditions, that were taught by their spoken word, for that first decade.
When troubles arose from false teaching, and they asked for clarification, the Apostle wrote to the bishop, so that he, in turn, could instruct his church as a whole.
There are only 21 letters in the New Testament. Do you believe that these 21 are ALL of the letters the Apostles wrote before they died? Logic dictates that not all of their writings survived.
Obviously, the early Church had practices which weren't written down, but, that were taught by the Apostles. And, obviously, these teachings were handed down after the Apostles died, and kept faithfully, through the power of the Holy Spirit.
Or, else, the Church would've vanished by the end of the first century. And, Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades" would not prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18,) would have to be a lie. Which is impossible.
Nick| 2.12.11 @ 12:09AM
Evanston2,
It was not an "authority vested in the Apostles alone" as you merely assert. Why did you leave out "the prophets" in your twisting of Ephesians 2:20, to try to make your point? The authority vested in Judas, as an Apostle, was transferred to Matthias.
"So, you assert that 'Holy Orders and Confirmation' automatically impart fidelity to God's Word."
This is were your problem with speed reading comes in. I didn't claim that Holy Orders and Confirmation "automatically impart fidelity to God's Word."
This is what I wrote: "So, Holy Orders and Confirmation are fidelity to God's Word." To state it another way: The Sacraments of Holy Orders and Confirmation, with the required laying on of hands, are clearly defined in the Bible. So, performing these rituals is "fidelity to God's Word."
My comparison to baptism was that both it, and confirmation, bring the power of the Holy Spirit to those who receive it. In baptism, the outward sign of washing with water represents the very real, supernatural pouring forth of the Spirit, to wash away the stain of original sin on our souls. It does not keep us from ever sinning again.
In confirmation, the laying on of hands by a bishop (who can trace the laying of hands on himself all the way back to the Apostles) is the outward sign of the Gift of the Paraclete, given to the Apostles at the first Pentecost. In the Scriptures, they were both distinct acts (cf Acts 8:14-17; Acts 19:2-6.) It, likewise, doesn't keep us from sinning.
Where did I assert that it was okay to lay on hands too hastily? More speed reading I assume.
Evanston2| 2.12.11 @ 6:42PM
Nick, I stopped my quote of Eph 2:20 at "Apostles" because that's who we were talking about. "Prophets" commonly refers to OT. But OK, are you saying that Mattias was a prophet? And exactly how is this relevant?
Thank you for the comparisons to baptism and confirmation, they are useful when we talk about efficacy. Are you saying that water baptism and confirmation are efficacious every time? If so, fine. Because when I use the word "automatic" that's what I mean -- efficacious every time. So which is it, automatic or not?
Or is it my failure to mention the Holy Spirit that offends? Sorry, I was trying to stay focused on the claim that the laying on of hands works every time. This explains a lot. Evidently if I don't give a full treatment of any topic, you believe that I need correction or education. Hint: when I ask "So what?" that means your point is irrelevant.
But this time I'm glad you brought the Holy Spirit clearly into the picture. I agree, the necessary and efficient cause of blessing in baptism, confirmation, and the laying on of hands is the Holy Spirit. So when I mention 1 Tim 5:22 -- that warns against "hasty" laying on of hands -- are you saying (1) even if it's hasty, the Holy Spirit still does His work, or (2) if it's hasty, the laying on of hands is defective and the Holy Spirit will not honor it? Please clarify. This is why I believe the verse is relevant to what you had to say in regard to your reliance on laying on of hands as a guarantee (or choose your own word, if you wish) of Rome's authority.
Also FYI, I take "fidelity" (a fancy word for faithfulness) to mean a general attitude of the heart. So when I said "impart fidelity to God's word" I meant to the Bible. And lookee here! The Bible does not ever assert, anywhere, that after a certain act or ceremony or whatever that someone will be completely sinless. Not during this life. Specifically, unless you are the Christ, impartation of fidelity to God's word would never mean sinlessness. So I was not in any way asserting that you associated Roman rites with impartation of sinlessness. Honestly, the thought never occurred to me.
So, in review, you have mentioned the laying on of hands as an outward sign of Rome's authority. I have questioned it and provided specific examples regarding whether (1) Rome has sole claim to apostolic succession through laying on of hands (it doesn't), (2) Whether Scripture confirms that Peter had special authority other than conversion of the Jews (it doesn't), (3) Whether the laying on of hands would confer this alleged special authority down through the centuries, in its entirety, to justify its tradition (including speaking ex cathedra -- out of Peter's chair -- infallibly). It is point #3 that I attempted to deal with here when discussing whether impartation is "automatic" etc. I wrote some questions above regarding this in the paragraph regarding the Holy Spirit. Have at it.
How do I judge a church if I don't rely on its pedigree? (How arrogant of me.) Well, I compare the fidelity of its words and actions (that is, its fruit) to God's standards as set forth in the Bible.
Nick| 2.13.11 @ 10:34AM
Evanston2,
Here is my rebuttal to the last part of your 2.11.11 @ 2:16AM post. I tried to post it yesterday, but it wouldn't for some reason.
After berating me for "[a]ppealing to tradition to justify appealing to tradition" you immediately write, "Let's review in detail the Bible passages you cited." Do you read your posts before you click the submit button? Very confusing.
Speaking of reading, Dude!, can you read?
"In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said [...]" (Acts 1:15) I don't see Saint James mentioned, at all.
I see that you conveniently left out: "And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them [...]" Acts 15:7) Talk about snipping out Bible quotes to make your point!
Then, when Cephas had made his case: "And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. Simon has related how [...]" Isn't that line in your Bible, Evanston2?
James is clearly appealing to what Cephas had just said, not the other way around. Peter leads all the Apostles and ancients; and then they all come to an agreement about what to do about the Gentiles. This was the first council of the Catholic Church, the Council of Jerusalem; and it was led by Simon Cephas, the Vicar of Christ. Just like all the catholic councils that would follow.
"God calls communication with the dead an abominaion in Deut 18:11-12."
Not in my Bible!
I'm assuming that this is the quote, from v. 11, that you are referring to: "[...] or that seeks the truth from the dead."
Or, from the RSV: "[...] or a necromancer [a method of divination through alleged communication with the dead]."
Asking the dead to pray for us is not "asking for truth," i.e. divination, from the dead. So, how exactly does asking those who have fallen asleep in Christ to pray for our intentions violate God's command from Deuteronomy 18?
You sure like to leave out key words and phrases when you "quote" the Bible, don't you? But, then you wouldn't be able to make your...umm...points, huh?
(Now that's how you do sarcasm! Ha-ha!)
Evanston2| 2.14.11 @ 8:50PM
Nick, You're right, in Acts 1:15 James is not there. I never said otherwise: my point (repeated again and again) is that Peter was clearly a leader but a conclusion that he had primacy is not supported in Scripture. Rather, it is demonstrably untrue.
What we do know from the other passages I cited is that Paul clearly had an independent area of responsibility from Peter, and when he reported to the church council in Acts 15 that James was in charge. Let's go over this again.
In our discussion, you were the first to mention Acts 15, specifically 6-21. You said this proves "Cephas also leads the Council of Jerusalem." So in responding, I highlighted the fact that you didn't mention James. How could I be hiding the Peter quote when what I said was in direct response to it?
You are not talking with me in good faith. Even worse, you are doing this with God's Word. In verses 6-11, Peter clearly makes an appeal (that is, he is a petitioner). Paul and Barnabas then testify to support the petition in v. 12. Finally, James makes the ruling as a judge. See verse 19, which I mentioned before: James says "Therefore my judgement is...". James makes the ruling. James is the presiding officer. Please, go look to some source you respect. You really should look up a Catholic reference about this council and your contention about Peter presiding instead of James.
Regarding Deut 18:11-12 I was referring to the word "medium" from the ESV. The RSV uses the same word. If you believe I was referring to "necromancer" then this is my fault, I was unclear.
Anyway, what does a spiritual "medium" do? Well, last time I checked, communicate with the dead. Could be, as you note, to ask "for truth." Really, is that all? When people go to a medium, they don't ask for assistance? Haven't you said that you pray to saints in order to get them to assist you with God? If this is incorrect, please clarify.
But you seem to be asserting that people use medium's for only 1 purpose. That's really interesting. I honestly could care less about scoring debating points with you here. If you want to believe this is true -- that contacting the dead is OK with God all the time, except when you're trying to get some sort of info -- then have at it. A plain reading of the passage indicates otherwise: that what you're doing is an abomination. The fact that no believers in the Bible "pray to the dead" should give you pause. The fact that God clearly identifies contacting the dead with pagans should give you pause. The fact that Saul's contact of Samuel brought rebuke and was quickly followed by unmitigated disaster should give you pause. But you won't pause. This is who you are.
Frisbee| 2.15.11 @ 9:31PM
We should pause before disobeying those who sit in the chair.
Frisbee| 2.15.11 @ 9:45PM
And it's not fair to compare Saul's summoning of Samuel by the medium of Endor, to the communion of saints in the Body of Christ.
But hey, that's the most challenging example yet Evanston2, thanks. The book of Maccabees (scripture rejected by protestants) mentions praying FOR the dead, but not to the dead. Interesting. Thanks again.
I wonder if there's a better scriptural example, other than Jesus himself of course.
Evanston2| 2.16.11 @ 12:01AM
Frisbee, I'm aware of the difference in canon regarding I & II Maccabees and other books. Go ahead and quote if you wish, I'm honestly being a bit lazy about it.
Regarding my being "not fair" though, I really will carefully read your response. Specifically, Deut 18:11-12 says regarding a "medium...whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD." Nick's position is that only "asking for truth" from the dead is banned here. Really? Why is "medium" listed separately from one who "inquires of the dead"? This could be parallelism (repetition to make sure we get it right). But this looks like a non-repetitive (though possibly overlapping) list, starting in v. 10. In fairness, you could cite v. 14 to say that God is banning practices where one "listens to" signs/omens or the dead. But this list includes burning children and conjuring of spells. These are obviously more than just when one "listens to" sources other than God, so I believe v. 14 just serves as a general reference back to the previous list.
What I'm trying to get at is Nick, at least, is asserting a very restricted role for a "medium" -- as if the pagans God threw out of the promised land never asked the dead to assist them. As if God only cares that the Jews do not ask for info from the dead, but He is OK with them asking for assistance from the dead.
In sum, I believe the meaning of "medium" that Nick applies is very narrow and without foundation. Further, if I may be unfair again, I believe that this interpretation of the word "medium" would not be applied by any of us in a normal discussion. Simply put, this is an example of verbal gymnastics that is surprising in view of God's unmitigated damnation of these practices. Perhaps I am unfair in calling a medium anyone who communicates with the dead. Please offer an alternative definition that you believe is "fair" (in addition to my request regarding Maccabees, if you have time).
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 9:11PM
I must say that navigating all these threads is getting a little confusing. But it's worth it for the excellence of conversation, and yes I'm lazy too.
Regarding summoning the dead, Jesus did it to Jairus' daughter and to Lazarus. Peter and Paul both raised people from the dead too, as I recall. There must be a right way and a wrong way. Saul's problem was his lack of faith, and his attempt to manipulate God through the powers of a witch. Same with Fortune Telling vs Prophecy: one is a sin against faith and one isn't. Regarding the communion of saints, we commune with the saints in the Body of Christ. I don't care if they're "dead" or not, as if anybody could be dead in Jesus.
2 Maccabees 12:43-45
The passage in Maccabees is this: "And when [Judas] had made a gathering throughout the company to the sum of two thousand drachmas of silver, he sent it to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection. For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it would have been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead. And also in that he perceived that there was great favor laid up for those that died godly, it was a holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." 2 Maccabees 12:43-45
All the earliest extant Bibles have the extra "catholic" OT books I think. They also had "The Shepherd of Hermas" and some of Barnabas' Epistles in the NT. I have never read them, but I would like to.
The Codex Sinaiticus has been brought back together on the web, through the combined efforts of those who own the various pieces.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
Evanston2| 2.20.11 @ 6:03PM
Frisbee, Raising the dead is a matter of healing. It is, in fact, the opposite of asking them for some sort of assistance or info ("praying" as Nick has asserted here: asking them to pray with us, just as we ask normal living people to pray for something).
I possess a "catholic" Bible with most of the books you mentioned, though I have lent it out to a (formerly) Catholic friend with whom I do a Bible study. Thank you for the Maccabees reference.
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 9:11PM
Evanston2 wrote: "Raising the dead is a matter of healing."
My point is that Jesus summoned dead people, so it can't be categorically evil.
Can we pray to Jesus? He died. (Not being facetious - not sure where the NT says to pray to Jesus - maybe I'm forgetting something.)
At any rate, praying to the saints (which Nick and I do) is not witchcraft or sorcery or medieval invention. It's the Communion of Saints, in the Body of Christ, referred to at the Council of Nicaea and placed in the creed, no less. The saints do not have their bodies yet (unlike Jesus and Mary, who do) but they are still a powerful cloud of witnesses.
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 9:24PM
Evanston2 wrote: "I possess a "catholic" Bible with most of the books you mentioned"
Actually, the books I mentioned "The Shepherd of Hermas" and the "Epistles of Barnabas" were in the oldest Bibles but are not in the Catholic Bible.
And you're welcome for the Maccabees reference. The web makes these things way easier than it used to be.
Frisbee| 2.28.11 @ 8:00PM
I just realized last night that a way better example of someone legitimately conversing with the dead was (again) Jesus himself, but specifically, Jesus conversing with Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor:
"As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus." Luke 9:29-30
Nick| 2.15.11 @ 10:05PM
Evanston2,
"[...] but when we see the early church in action the leader is James the half-brother of Christ."
Acts 1:15 is the first act of the early Church recorded. This is why I cited it.
How could I be hiding Saint James' role at the Council of Jerusalem when, as you admit, I was the one who cited Acts 15: 6-21 in the first place? My quote covers James' role in its entirety, does it not?
You seem to think that just because you pick out only the Bible quotes that seem to make your point, that everyone else does the same thing. We don't, as I have shown, by quoting the Scriptures at length.
Just because Saint James says, "In my judgement" does not mean he is a judge. I say this all the time, does that make me a judge?
Also, to use one of your own arguments against you, notice that James appeals to the prophets (v. 16-18) in his judgement. I guess this disproves your assertion that Saint James had primacy at this council, huh? Just like you used Saint Peter's appeal to the Psalms, in Acts 1, to cast doubt on his.
Cephas was the first to speak. That is the role of the presider. He is also the only one mentioned, by name, at Pentecost (cf Acts 2.) Here is a list showing the pre-eminence of Saint Peter in the Scriptures:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/50PROOFS.TXT
Show me a similar list regarding Saint James. I can save you some time, there isn't one. I'm in no way demeaning the role of James in the Church. He was the Bishop of Jerusalem, a very important office.
Regarding mediums, they claim to communicate with the dead. Communication is a two way street. Catholics don't claim to speak with the dead. When we ask a saint to pray for our intentions, we don't hear them talk back. This is really a stretch, Evanston2.
As I have repeatedly stated, I do not pray to the dead. I ask the Saints (and my loved ones who have passed away) to pray for my intentions. That's all. Just like when I ask the living to pray for me. It is just a request. (The best person to take your petitions to is Our Lady, the Queen Mother.)
Mostly, I ask for them to pray to God that I become a better Christian. Catholics aren't they only ones who ask the Saints to pray for them, by the way.
Evanston2| 2.16.11 @ 12:26AM
Nick, My claim is that Peter is one of many leaders. I have substantiated it. You really really really need to consult a source that you would normally trust regarding the Jerusalem Council and the roles of the participants.
Even when it's right in front of you, you don't care about the inspired Word. If the quotes were reversed between Peter and James, you wouldn't be dismissing the word "judgement" in this manner. But in your zeal you are fundamentally dishonest and I have reached my limit...with the exception of your treatment of Purgatory and Mary's Immaculate Conception, Assumption. THAT I am looking forward to.
Regarding the multiplicity of quotes, no kidding, Peter is the lead figure UNTIL Acts and a key player in Acts. But his encounter with Paul (who opposed him "to the face" per Gal 2:11) and the role of James both directly contradict your claim to primacy. It is based on your tradition, nothing more. If you find your tradition comforting, then read 1 Cor 1:12 about how meaningful it is that you "follow Cephas."
I addressed the "medium" question in my response to Frisbee, above. You have betrayed yourself in your comments here and I will deal exclusively with Frisbee except in regard to your upcoming post on Purgatory and Mary.
Nick| 2.16.11 @ 7:23PM
Evanston2,
The Catholic Church's teachings concerning Our Lady begin in the Davidic kingdom of the Old Testament. In the ancient Near-East, it was the queen mother, the mother of the king, who ruled as queen, not the wife of the king. Kings practiced polygamy, e.g. Solomon had over 700 wives. But the king only had one mother.
The queen mother was given great respect and authority. The queen mother is listed as part of king Jehoiachin's royal court, when he surrendered to the king of Babylon (2 Kings 24:12.) As king David's spouse, Bathsheba humbles herself to the king by bowing to him (1 Kings 1:16-17.) As queen mother, king Solomon bows to Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:19-20.)
Queen Bathsheba also makes a request to the king on behalf of Adonijah, because the king "cannot deny you anything" (v. 17.) King Solomon says the same, "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you" (v. 20.) The queen also sat at the king's right hand, the place of greatest honor in the Bible (cf Psalm 110; Hebrews 1:13.)
The Gospels of Saints Matthew and Luke, both, emphasize Christ's Kingship, as a son of David (cf Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:31-33.) Elizabeth greets Mary as "the mother of my Lord" (Luke 1:43,) another title to refer to the queen mother, in the royal court language of the ancients.
In the Book of Revelations, Mary is portrayed as the "woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars." (Rev 12:1) Just before this, in Revelation 11: 19, "the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple." Mary is considered the ark of the New Covenant, Christ Our Lord. And, since Enoch and Elijah were assumed up to Heaven, alive, it is not without precedent in the Bible. The Scriptures do not record her death.
The angel Gabriel greets Mary with, "Hail Mary, full of Grace." (Luke 1:28) If she was full of Grace, she was not conceived with original sin. How could Christ be conceived by the Holy Spirit with someone who had been conceived with the stain of original sin? Sin has natural as well as supernatural effects. Christ's human nature could not be made with a woman who was guilty of sin.
If you could've made your mother, wouldn't you have made her sinless?
Here is a good article on this:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112fea1.asp
Evanston2| 2.20.11 @ 6:05PM
Thank you for the answer.
Nick| 2.21.11 @ 7:19PM
Evanston2,
You are entirely welcome.
And let me also thank you for this opportunity to do what I love, share my faith with others.
This long discussion has made me do what I don't do often enough: Read the Bible, and the history of Christianity.
I have learned new things, so, I also thank you for that.
God Bless!
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 9:27PM
Nick and Evanston2: thanks for letting me tag along.
Nick| 2.23.11 @ 6:39PM
Frisbee,
Thank you, for your many fine contributions, especially for your links. I've learned much.
God Bless!
Nick| 2.16.11 @ 8:15PM
Evanston2,
I have "betrayed" myself? How did I do that?
When I think of a "medium" I think of Madam Zorba, a crystal ball, and a S'eance with a spooky voice.
"Asking for truth" was not my "position," it was how it was translated in the Douay-Rheims bible, by the way. So, your accusation is specious.
You are condemning me to eternal damnation based on your rather unique definition of the English word medium.
What was the Hebrew word that was used? I don't know, myself. I could give you the Greek and Latin, if you'd like?
I can only go by the context of the full quote. It is clearly talking about the abominable acts practiced by the Canaanites, e.g. burning their children as offerings and the black arts, as you have previously stated.
But, it was not a black art to ask the dead to pray, for the living, to the One, True God. I'm sorry you don't see the distinction.
Also, contrary to your claims, elsewhere in this thread, I have not taken offense of your use of "Romanism," or anything else you have written, in our discussions.
How, exactly, you have divined that I was offended, through the written word, I do not know. But, I assure you, I have not. I have found some of your comments hard to understand, that is all.
You, on the other hand, do seem to have been offended by what I have written. I'm sorry for this. It was not my intention.
As I have previously stated, contentiousness should not be part of a discussion about Our Lord, Jesus Christ.
God Bless!
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 8:42PM
Evanston2 wrote: "My claim is that Peter is one of many leaders. I have substantiated it."
That is true. Peter is a Bishop. All bishops have the power of binding and loosing. They are the "binders and loosers". The question becomes, who can bind and loose a binder and looser? The one with the keys.
You were a marine Evanston2 (like the centurion Jesus praises in the gospel). You know how authority works. Can there be order with 5000 bishops and no single voice with primacy? So yes, in a way Peter's successor is just a bishop. There's no higher order, and no new ordination of a new pope. But there is an "installation" into the Chair of Peter in St John Lateran's, where Peter sat. Moses judged and had his judges, but I would say he was "just a judge", without clarifying his singular importance.
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 9:38PM
Oops: "Moses judged and had his judges, but I would say he was "just a judge", ..."
I meant "wouldn't", of course.
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 9:37PM
In Acts 1, Peter stands up and announces apostolic succession (for Judas!), and how that successor will be chosen.
In Acts 15, about circumcision, it is again Peter: "The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them..."
As far as I recall, James wasn't Bishop of Jerusalem until Peter left (for Antioch?).
But Evanston2, you hit on some interesting observations. I have often wondered why we had so much writing from Paul, and so little from Peter and the others. The answer must be that Peter etcetera were mostly stationary, staying in one diocese, and addressing their faithful orally. But Paul traveled about so much, establishing new communities and then leaving, and then necessarily writing to them because he wasn't there. This strikes me doubly, because at one point Paul mentions that he doesn't baptize much (sorry i forget where).... Right! of course he doesn't! He doesn't baptize but rather appoints Bishops, Presbyters etc to do the baptizing. The other Apostles don't have any Bishops, because they are the Bishop. So anyway, in writing it may seem like Paul takes the lead (and he certainly did in a way), but you must admit that this appearance is at least partially due to the fact that his communications were written down (not being in his own diocese, or even having one), while the others were local and didn't need to write. (Also note that his letters are never "catholic", ie to the whole church, whereas the other's letters always are.) Sorry, just thinking out loud.
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 9:51PM
Oh I see, when James gets up later in Acts 15: "When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how...."
So it sounds to me like he's "seconding" Peter (Simon), and steering the council in the direction Peter called out. He's not taking the council in an opposing direction.
Most of the Councils in the history of the Church have not been attended by the Popes, anyway, including Nicea, Ephesus, and Chalcedon. Usually he just sends representatives. So even if Peter hadn't been at the Council of Jerusalem at all, it wouldn't have implications. God had already revealed the truth to Peter (same as in Matt 16:18 hey). Peter doesn't need the council - rather the council needs Peter.
Evanston2| 2.20.11 @ 6:37PM
Frisbee, My point of contention with Nick is in regard to who is the presiding officer at the Council. No doubt James agrees with Peter, as you say, but a straightforward reading of the text would reveal that judgement is rendered by James. This is not a mere "seconding" of Peter's petition, since Paul and Barnabas testified and then James rendered judgement. Further, since the ruling applied to the entire church (not just Jerusalem), I do not see how Peter's putative move to Antioch (regardless of timing) figures in to the matter: if Peter's primacy was recognized, he would be last to speak, in judgement.
If the speaking roles were reversed, I would accept that Peter presided. Sadly, I do not believe that Nick would maintain his current interpretation. No, I believe he would change his interpretation of the words instantly if we replaced the name "James" with "Peter" and vice versa.
When you, Frisbee, assume a conclusion based on tradition, that's OK with me because your other posts clearly recognize tradition as the point of departure. You can argue from silence when necessary, that's fine as long as you recognize it. Conversely, Nick insists that Scripture says what he twists it to say. This is worse than fruitless, and if I may reach back to the Flannery O'Connor discussion, shows a major league obedience problem. Essentially, if "I don't get what I want I will walk away." In this case, if the Scripture doesn't support your claim to a pedigree from Peter, then "to hell with it."
I am thankful that Nick's latest citations of Scripture, though grand (to say the least) in their interpretation, at least do not directly contradict its immediate meaning. The position that Mary was sinless of course violates all sorts of Scripture, and just kicks the can 1 generation previous (if Jesus needed a sinless mother, why didn't Mary?). Worst of all, it violates the Gospel since it establishes another way to salvation other than payment for our sins by our Lord.
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 8:19PM
Evanston2 wrote: "if Jesus needed a sinless mother".
I don't think the doctrine is one of "necessity". God could have done things differently (it seems to me). But if you consider the fulfillment of scripture a necessity, then maybe God made her sinless to fulfill " I will put enmity between you and the woman" (Gen 3:15).
Evanston2 wrote: "it violates the Gospel since it establishes another way to salvation".
Catholic Church teaches that this was done for her "in view of the merits of Christ". So Jesus saved her before his Redemption, but not outside of his Redemption. She was saved from sin (like us) but from the first moment of her existence (not like us).
Keep in mind that being conceived and born sinless was supposed to be the normal mode of human existence. Adam and Eve were created sinless, and their kids would have been immaculately conceived as well, had they not fallen.
Evanston2 wrote: "if Peter's primacy was recognized, he would be last to speak, in judgment."
Peter was first to speak. If the council went his way (it did) then there was no need for him to speak further. Also, James says "my" judgment, not "the final judgment of me the final judge" or such. So you can try to construe that sense into the passage, but it's not at all obvious. Also, if you look at the structure of James' speech, there are 2 authorities referred to: 1) Simon, and 2) the "words of the prophets". Finally, the passage continues "Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church...", and the letter itself states "We have heard..." and "we all agreed", etc. In a state of such unanimity, it would be difficult to discern who has the trump card.
Evanston2 wrote: "I do not see how Peter's putative move to Antioch (regardless of timing) figures in to the matter."
Peter was first to speak, which would be shocking if he had already moved to Antioch and didn't have primacy. That's why it figures in. But frankly I don't know if he had moved to Antioch yet.
Nick| 2.19.11 @ 8:08PM
Evanston2,
In addition to Frisbee's quote from 2 Maccabees 12, about praying for the dead, we have other Scriptures that point to Purgatory. Even though you don't include Maccabees as the Inspired Word of God, it shows that second century B.C. Jews were praying for the dead. The question is: Why?
We all have "sin which clings so closely" (Hebrews 12:1.) But, "nothing unclean shall enter [Heaven]" (Rev. 21:27.) So, how are we purified? (Purgatorium means purging or cleansing, in Latin.)
Saint Paul tells us in 1 Cor. 3:13–15, "Every man's work shall be manifest. For the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire. And the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abide, which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."
Looking up all these Scripture verses, it has occured to me what your problem is, in a nutshell.
I quote a Bible passage to you, as evidence of what the Catholic Church teaches, and you claim it does not mean what I say it does. You quote a verse back to refute me, and I claim that your quote doesn't rebut my quote. And, it would seem, we are at an impasse. But, in actuality, only you are at an impasse.
When you assert that a Bible passage, or series of passages, means x, and I assert that x is not the full meaning, or flat out contradict you; you have no recourse but to say, "It means x because I said so."
I, on the other hand, can appeal to the first Christians, who were taught by the Apostles, or, to those whom they taught. Men like Clement I of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneaus of Lyons, etc. These first Christians passed on the Sacred Traditon of the Gospel of Christ.
I have complete faith that I can appeal to this Sacred Tradition, because I am following the examples of Christ Himself, and the Apostles, as written in the New Testament. Our Lord, and His disciples, appealed to Tradition in their own time.
Christ mentions that the "[...] Pharisees sit on Moses' seat [...]" (Matthew 23:2.) The authority of Moses' seat is not mentioned in the Old Testament, it is Jewish tradition. There was an actual stone seat in front of the synagogue where a scribe would sit.
(This Jewish tradition of Moses' authority being passed down also pre-figured the authority of the Pope, and ex cathedra, i.e. from the chair, pronouncements from the Chair of Saint Peter, like the Seder meal of the Pasch.)
And, in the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, it is written, "[...] that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23.) This, also, is not found in the Old Testament. It is a Jewish Tradition about the Messiah.
Similarly, Saint Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:4, says that the rock that Moses struck, for water, "followed them" and that the rock was Christ. Nowhere in the Old Testament does it say the rock followed the Israelites, this was a rabbinic Tradition. As were the traditional names of the magicians who opposed Moses, Jannes and Jambres, in 2 Timothy 3:8.
Saint James says that Elijah "prayed fervently" for no rain to fall for three years in Israel, yet, in 1 Kings 17, it does not mention Elijah praying. It was rabbinic tradition that Elijah was the ultimate man of prayer.
The Book of Saint Jude relates that the archangel Michael contended with Satan over the body of Moses (another example of a bodily assumption, along with Enoch and Elijah, by the way.) This fight over Moses' body is not in the Old Testament. Jude also quotes the prophecy of Enoch (v.14-15) which is not found in the Old Testament.
So, you see, it is entirely Biblical to appeal to Tradition while preaching the Good News of Christ Jesus.
Finally, your objection to the practice of Catholic theologians using the writings of Aristotle, and other pagans, to make their points, also goes against the Scriptures:
"Paul quotes books by the pagan writers Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides (Acts 17:28, 1 Cor. 15:33, and Titus 1:12, respectively) or when the Old Testament refers us to the book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:2)." - This Rock, June 1995, Quick Questions.
Hope that helps.
God Bless!
Evanston2| 2.20.11 @ 6:41PM
Nick, So you can pay for your own sins in purgatory? And Mary doesn't need to at all, since she was (as you say elsewhere) "sinless." You therefore nullify the work of Christ, since there is indeed "another way" to salvation. You preach another Gospel, and by it are condemned.
Nick| 2.21.11 @ 8:31PM
Evanston2,
From your response to Frisbee, above, you seem to be making this personal to me, like these are my personal opinions and interpretations. You also seem to be setting up some kind of false dichotomy between myself and Frisbee.
These are not my arguments (I'm not that smart.) If I may quote Maximus the Confessor (c. A.D. 638): "I have no private opinion, but only agree with the Catholic Church." These are the arguments of the first Christians. Some of these heresies have been around for almost two millenia.
There were little Martin Luthers running around even in the second century A.D.:
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth." - Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 2, Paragraph 2
I'm not sure were you came up with "you can pay for your own sins" from what I wrote.
Purgatory involves the purification of the soul. Judgement happens at death. We are either found guilty or guiltless then. The guiltless still have the stain of sin on their souls. It must be purified, "as by fire" in Paul's words, until perfect. Then the soul can enter Heaven.
The martyrs who've died in the name of Christ also enter Heaven, without Purgatory, just like the Saints. Our Lady was made sinless by an extraordinary grace of God. She was the perfect Christian, following all of the teachings of Christ without objection.
I do not nullify the work of Christ. Only through Christ do we enter Heaven. This is the Good News of Christ Jesus. Praise the Lord.
God Bless!
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 8:32PM
Those in purgatory are already saved, as 1 Cor 3:15 says.
Frisbee| 2.23.11 @ 8:39PM
Evanston2 wrote: "So you can pay for your own sins in purgatory?"
I'm not sure the Catholic Church would put it that way, but Jesus said this: "I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny." Matthew 5:26
Sin is an offense against God and against creation. The offense against God is infinitely outrageous because God is infinitely good. There is nothing you can do to heal the infinite aspect of the sin, and Jesus merits are necessary for that aspect. But the sin against creation is necessarily finite and can (must?) be repaid, yes.
If you steal $5, and then repent, God can forgive you. BUT YOU STILL NEED TO RETURN THE $5.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 12:17PM
"...the responsorial psalms are taken directly from the bible?"
Yes and no. The Psalms are DEFINITELY in the Bible. Using them as a constant refrain to prayer, or as some type of cyclical chant is NOT.
Matthew 6:7 "But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:24PM
But Dr. (most always, but perhaps not in this case) Right,
Are you truly convinced that repeating a Psalm, or Psalms, is a vain repeti0n? I am pretty cure most Christians would recognize that repeating Bible Verse is many things, but certainly not vain repetion.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:32PM
It depends.
It's a matter of sincerity.
If they're just said as a matter of rote, then, yes, it's a vain repetition issue.
If they are MEANT, as it were - in an active sense, where we let the Psalms guide our prayer, then it's genuine.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:01PM
What he said.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:20PM
Yes, agreed (with Ryan and the good Dr.) It is a question of sincerity.
And also Appleby has hit on something as well. At the end, God's judgment will rule regarding the sincerity of a prayer.
Perhaps even insincere repetition may be the opening for God's grace to change that person's prayer orientation from insincere to sincere... What are your thoughts?
Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 2:06PM
As for whether or not the recitation of a psalm, hymn or prayer is "meant", isn't that up to God to decide? C.S. Lewis points out in "Mere Chritianity" that God knows who is driving a wrecked machine, and that it is entirely possible for a sour old maid or tired pipefitter to be a better Christian than the most eloquent priest -- simply because the former are starting from a much more difficult place.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:20PM
He already HAS decided. And He told us so.
Again:
Matthew 6:7 "But when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking."
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:21PM
Looks like you both are hitting the same nail from different angles.
Bob Grant| 2.3.11 @ 7:33PM
Good Doctor (Who I'm also in agreement with >90% of the time):
Maybe you don't fully understand why Catholics "chant" psalms. I suggest you go to You Tube and watch a few homilies by Father John Corapi. Here's a few:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhAyEZR4gUk &
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related
The good Father does a great job explaining the faith.
You'd like him. He's like the Vince Lombardi of priests.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:29PM
Doctor Right keeps quoting "use not vain repetitions". But the Bible has built in repetitions, such as "praise and exalt him above all forever" (Daniel 3). You really mean I can only say that verse once?? Do I have to not read it out loud?
The point is the repetition should not be vain, as the heathens do. The fact that Jesus clarified "as the heathens do" means that "vain" is not even a full description. I wonder what the heathens used to do, exactly.
Repetition Good.
Vain, as the heathens do, Bad.
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:23AM
The point is that since it's mere repetition, it IS vain.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 3:15PM
So it has been decreed by Pope Bigot I, this fourth day of February, in the second year of his reign.
Nice man-made doctrine you just came up with there, Doctor Wrong.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 7:52PM
Dr Right says "The point is that since it's mere repetition, it IS vain."
What is "mere" repetition, the chanting of the Psalms? Or do you mean the Refrain? How long should we wait before singing the same Biblical phrase? Maybe by singing, it's not "mere" repetition anymore.
Hey, didn't Jesus repeat himself in the Garden of Gethsemane? "Once more he went away and prayed the same thing." Mark 14:39
Looks like Dr Right must be wrong about pure repetition. That's okay Dr! We're all on the narrow road, running our race. Just repent of your error and let's move on.
Le Cracquere| 2.3.11 @ 6:56PM
No offense meant, but are you positive you've done your research fully? A "refrain to prayer, or ... cyclical chant" seems pretty close to the Psalms' EXPLICITLY designed intention. It's right there in the front material, and at the start of most of the Psalms.
Jeffrey| 2.3.11 @ 1:38PM
PJ, with you on the readings, but much of the rest of the service though done intentionally to celebrate important parts of the bible are abstracted to the point that someone could be very familiar with all of the new testament & still not make the connection with the service.
Mentioning that because I didn't understand the reasoning behind some parts of the service until I listened to a priest explain the service to a bunch of young kids.
Hearing him was kind of an epiphany to me. Suddenly I could look at the service and finally say I get it.
gingadecorgi| 2.3.11 @ 12:55PM
If you were to go to Mass 2011 you would hear scripture from the Old/New Testament. Sadly, the sermon may put you to sleep. But the Mass is the Eucharist. Learn. As for the "catholic hospital." It's about time the rest of the brother Bishops followed this Bishop. There are a few. Archbishop Chaput CO. Archbishop T Dolan NY. The scandals of Catholic public officials needs to be addressed. This hospital? Drop it. These crazy nuns are not good reps for the hospital or the Catholic faith.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:36PM
Catholics get naps in the pews as well? Haha.
Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 2:07PM
The homily (not sermon) in the Catholic church is not the entree; it is the appetizer.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:35PM
gazinya wrote: "In all my Catholic education we were taught the Catholic dogma but I can not remember anything from the Bible. Not in class and not in the Mass."
Thanks for sharing. I had a very weak Catholic upbringing, but we went to Mass every Sunday. The thing that jumped out at me, and planted the seed of faith in me which I accepted eventually, was the words of Jesus in the Gospel.
gazinya| 2.3.11 @ 11:08PM
I do not hate the Catholic Church. I'm not even upset with the organization but my daily readings in school were not from the Bible but from a catechism book. Every Sunday we read from St. Josephs Missle, not the Bible. I knew, as taught, of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. I knew that these were God. It was not until I was in my 20s, though, that I had ever read anything from a Bible. I don't know what a first reading is or what is meant by a second reading. Remember I said I had not attended Mass since 1965. The only book we used in Mass was the St. Joseph Missle and every sermon for that day was assigned by the dates in the Missle. If the priest had said 'please open you Bibles to Hebrews 4 there would have only an audible gasp. "What is he saying?" We did have two collections though, if that helps. Here's my point. If you are a Catholic then obey the Catholic Church. If you pick and choose then be something else. I did. I chose Christ with out the incense.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 12:47AM
Gazinya,
Please, come back home!
The "readings" mentioned above, refer to the three readings from the Scriptures that are part of the Novus Ordo Mass, or, the New Mass. As opposed to the Tridentine Mass you grew up with.
The Mass today is in two parts: The Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist.
The Liturgy of the Word ends with three readings from the Scriptures, followed by a homily from the presiding cleric.
The first reading is from the Old Testament. The second reading is from one of the New Testament books, sans the Gospels. The third reading is from one of the four Gospels. This is for Sunday Masses, for the most part.
For daily Mass there are just two readings, the Gospel, and the other from either Old or New Testaments.
There are different Scripture readings for every day of the year, for a three year cycle. So, in a three year period, a Catholic who follows the Mass readings, will be exposed to almost the entire Bible.
I don't know how this compares to the Tridentine rite. I have neve attended one.
I hope this answers your question.
C. S. P. Schofield| 2.3.11 @ 8:55AM
I am not a Catholic. I am not even a Christian. Nevertheless I support the Catholic Church's right to determine its own doctrine. In fact I will echo something I remember from decades ago in the letters column of the National Review;
You say you are a Christian, but you decline to place yourself under the doctrinal rules of the Catholic Hierarchy? Congratulations; you are a Protestant.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 10:02AM
Christians are NOT obligated to place themselves under the doctrinal rules of the Catholic hierarchy. Only Catholics are...If they choose to be.
You say you are neither Christian nor Catholic. "Christian" does not automatically mean Catholic. Catholicism is but one of many denominations under the umbrella of Christianity.
Yes, Catholics believe they are the "one, true faith"...But that's an argument for another day.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM
That's not what he was saying. You're presuming malice where there is none.
It's a reference to even those who consider themselves Catholic, but do not agree with basic tenants of the denomination they hold to.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 11:53AM
I presumed no malice at all, nor delivered any, either.
He's not bothered; what's your problem?
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 12:19PM
Maybe slight misinterpretation on the malice part, but I think that you may have misunderstood the last line about not being under doctrinal rules.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 12:49PM
Actually, no.
The idea that if one is a Christian then one is automatically a) Catholic, or b) Protestant is a HUGE misunderstanding.
I am neither Catholic, nor Protestant. I do not belong to a denomination. I am a Christian. Period.
I do not follow any man-made creeds, codes, laws, rules, councils, edicts, etc. NONE of these are binding, especially if they contradict scripture, which they often do.
Jeffrey| 2.3.11 @ 1:43PM
Do you mean that you attend no church then?
I'm curious. I can't think of any Christian churches that would be neither Catholic or Protestant? If you trace the history, even churches that call themselves only xyz Christian church are a splinter or a splinter from the Catholic or a Protestant denomination.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:07PM
No. I do NOT mean that.
I attend Church regularly, usually at least twice a week.
We have a church building, a preacher, and an actual congregation, too. We pray, we sing, we partake of communion (funny, but when else does anyone use the word "partake"..?)
We're a real church.
We're really Christians. And we're not Catholics or Protestants.
The idea that one must be either/or actually springs indirectly from Catholic doctrine. Since Catholics assume (falsely) that they are the "one, true faith", they naturally assume that anyone who does not follow their faith follows one that is in rebellion ("protest") against Catholicism. From that perspective, it's a logical conclusion, albeit a completely false one.
In actuality, it is Catholicism that is in rebellion against the Church.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 2:11PM
What's a Protestant, then?
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:15PM
A movement that began in northern Europe in the early 16th century as a reaction against medieval Roman Catholic doctrines and practices.
I do NOT belong to a Church that fits that definition.
We are Christians. Pure and simple. I guess you could say we're part of the "No labels" crowd?
Again...Nice try.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:16PM
Catholicism is itself a splinter-movement.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 8:17PM
Dr Right wrote: "Catholicism is itself a splinter-movement."
In what sense? Catholic means universal, or maybe "whole". The word "catholic" was a very early term to indicate the entire true church, as opposed to local true churches such as "the church at corinth", etc.
Catholics as individuals are united through the fact of their communion with the only bishop with universal jurisdiction, the Pope, the successor of Peter. In that way, the office of Peter is the office of unity in the one church.
As regards the first known use of the word "catholic" in extant literature, it appears in the Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8. Ignatius was a disicple of John, and Bishop of Antioch (where the followers of the Way were first called "Christians") from 98 to 117A.D., and was martyred in Rome in 117 A.D.
So here's what this Bishop of Antioch, where the term "Christian" was first used, and where Peter had his chair for a while, has to say:
"See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid."
So Catholicism may be a splinter group from humanity (thank God), but it is not a splinter group from Apostolic Christianity.
Akaky| 2.3.11 @ 2:19PM
Jeffrey, if you choose to deny the authority of the Pope and still not be Protestant, you could be a member of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, or the Assyrian Church of the East. Martin Luther is not the only alternative to Rome.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:21PM
Or, you could be...a Christian!
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:38PM
Jeffrey wrote: "I can't think of any Christian churches that would be neither Catholic or Protestant?"
Don't forget the Orthodox churches, and the Copts.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 1:43PM
You're, by standard (not self) definition, Protestant.
And you DID miss the point of the final line as it relates to the article.
It's talking about self-professed Catholics who radically deviate from doctrine, to the point where they practically fall under a general "Protestant" definition.
He's not saying that all Christians are Catholics.
"I do not follow any man-made creeds, codes, laws, rules, councils, edicts, etc. NONE of these are binding, especially if they contradict scripture, which they often do."
Nice creed. Where is it in the Bible?
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 2:11PM
Nice try. But...
I am NOT a Protestant. I'm not sure why this is hard to understand.
My statement is not meant as a "creed". It's a statement. It's similar to saying "I don't drive a Hyundai". It's a fact. It's not an article of faith (as would be expressed in scripture, and ONLY in scripture), NOR is it in opposition to scripture...So there's no inherent contradiction in saying it.
Christian DOES NOT by definition = Catholic and/or Protestant. Hate to tell you, but there were no Catholics or Protestants in the Bible...Ever.
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 3:09PM
Like it or not, your statement more or less falls under the definition of "creed." It's a defined theological position. That's the core of what a creed is.
The theology you proclaim comes directly from various creeds and confessions. The Westminster Confession - among others - begins with the authoritative nature of the scriptures above and beyond the creed itself, and every point and statement has scriptural reference. Some you may not agree with. Some I don't.
It doesn't make it non-Biblical.
I bet that you and your church have several beliefs regarding baptism, eschatology, salvation, scriptural authority, toungues, etc, that precisely echo many points of many creeds...and were long-thought out and derived and debated many years ago....by Biblical literalists who desperately searched to figure things out.
And that are vague enough that when directly quoting scripture there is room for debate, and your church decides there is a more defined position.
They didn't arrive there in a historical vacuum.
Unfortunately, you have a minority viewpoint definition of what a Protestant is...and you hold precisely the same or similar theological viewpoints as the early Protestants did.
It makes you a Protestant. Sorry, but the label is there. Neither of us has a choice on whether or not it sticks.
It also doesn't make you NOT a Christian.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 4:12PM
It's NOT a creed. Sorry, but that's just silly, and faulty reasoning.
The theology I embrace is called "Christianity". It has ONE (1) source: THE BIBLE. That's it. The beliefs that the Church I attend also ALL come from the Bible, and only the Bible. They are NOT the result of "long, thought-out and derived debates"; they are the inspired words of God.
Nor do we believe that scripture is "vague". In fact, it's quite unambiguous, especially on the major points. Those who believe or state otherwise are usually people with a worldly agenda that contradicts God's word.
Frankly, I'm uninterested in the popularity of these views. I don't base my faith on how many others share it. I base it on my ability to read, discuss, and discern the Truth. If I'm the only person in the room who believes it, so be it.
Again, you fail to understand that a "Protestant" is one who "protests" something. I already pointed-out that theologically speaking, the Protestant-movement was developed in opposition ("protest") to Catholicism. Since Christianity pre-dates Catholicism, then BY DEFINITION, it CANNOT be "protestant".
So...again...I'm NOT a Protestant. I don't know why you fail to understand this, unless it contradicts your own faith (or creeds).
Finally...You do realize that by insisting that what I wrote IS a creed, then (as you like to say), BY DEFINITION, you are confirming that all "creeds" are man-made, and therefore not valid because they're unscriptural?
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 4:59PM
Sola Scriptura.
From Westminster: "X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
It is NOT a new idea. Using the Bible as the sole source of faith, honestly...is. As in Protestant Reformation new. I'm not arguing against it.
I'm arguing against your lack of historical perspective on the matter.
SOME scripture is "vague." If you brought out some theological position outside of the necessity of the Gospel, I could probably give you several differing positions on what it means...with scriptural backing for each of them.
Your ideas about Christianity "predating" Catholicism come DIRECTLY from the Protestant reformation.
EVERY doctrinal position that your church has I can probably show you where the matter was debated (often more than once) in the past and it probably has a credal "answer" that is an official position derived from the scriptures.
A Noble Effort| 2.3.11 @ 8:09PM
Ryan:
Not really worth it at this point, don't you think?
"I may be someone who believes that there is no God but God, and that Muhammad is the messenger of God, and that Ali is the executor of God, but don't call me a Shi'a Muslim. The word "Muslim" has unfortunate overtones of submission to domination, and "Shi'a (supporters)" is a derogatory term applied by those who call themselves "traditional" Muslims."
"And maybe I don't view the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy reflected by the tissue of my irises as appropriately described by the color of a leaf, but to everybody else, my eyes are 'green.'"
Maybe I just lack any understanding of the history and meaning of the words "Shi'a," "Muslim," and "green." Or maybe they displease me for some reason. In this case, perhaps I should realize that if I am going to speak English, then I should not criticize others for using the language in a way completely consistent with the way it is used by the cultures which speak English, rather than with my own idiosyncratic and parochial culture.
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:47AM
You are illogical, and somewhat confused on matters of history.
Simply because some Protestant denominations also believe in using only the Bible for direction, etc, does NOT mean that all churches who do so are "Protestant". That's like saying a Ford is a Mercedes because they both have 4 tires and a steering wheel. It's a false conclusion.
Also, you repeatedly assert the Catholic perspective to define what is " Protestantism", and that is faulty logic as well. As I already said, Christinity predates the denomination called "Catholicism". That's not supposition, that's fact.
Additionally, Protestant denominations (Baptists, for example) often insert or elevate specific creeds or doctrines as articles of faith and elevate those items to the level of scripture. The Church I attend does not do this. And if one uses the Bible and ONLY the Bible as the source of Christian doctrine, one will logically arrive arbutus conclusion.
So, once again, and with feeling: Not a Carholic and not a Protestant. If you're unable to understand this, I can't say I didn't try.
Akaky| 2.3.11 @ 5:12PM
"They are NOT the result of "long, thought-out and derived debates"; they are the inspired words of God."
Is that so, Doc? Do you hold that Jesus has two natures, divine and human? And do you hold that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:40PM
Dr Right wrote: "Nor do we believe that scripture is "vague"."
Who's "we"?
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:29AM
Christians.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:50PM
Dr Right also wrote: "In fact, it's quite unambiguous, especially on the major points. Those who believe or state otherwise are usually people with a worldly agenda that contradicts God's word."
But the Bible says: "our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you,
as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. " 2 Pet 3:15-16
Jesus left us a Church with a Shepherd. He did not leave us a Bible. The Church affirmed the Old Testament (of which protestants reject 7 books), and assembled the New Testament (of which Luther rejected a few books, especially the letter of James because it contradicted one of his pet "Sola" theories).
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 6:34AM
Catholics often express the arrogant idea that the Bible would not exist without them. By doing so, they improperly assert themselves as principal editors into the word of God. Sorry, but the letters of Paul, the Gospels, and the remaining books of the Bible were written by non-Catholics, long before Catholicism existed.
Also hate to tell you that just because something is hard for you to understand doesn't make it ambiguous; it makes it something you don't understand.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:52AM
Who, then, did edit the Word of God, Doctor Wrong?
As you probably don't know, there were writings known as the Gnostic Gospels back in the second and third centuries A.D. These were written by non-Catholics.
Who decided that these false gospels should not be included in the New Testament?
Or, how about the Book of Enoch, which is quoted in the New Testament, but is not included in the Old? Who decided that?
I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count, okay?
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 8:06AM
Oh, it's "Nick"...Protector of the Realm "Catholicus"...
Who "edited" the Word of God?
What a bizarre question. No one.
Yes, I'm aware of the Gnostic Gospels. There are all kinds of Books proclaiming themselves to be "Gospels", such as "The Gospel of Judas". What of it?
You obviously don't understand the difference between "fact-checking" and "editing".
The books in the Bible weren't "edited". They were fact-checked and cross-referenced against each other, as well as against historical documents related to Christ and the early Christians written by men like Tacitus and Josephus. (Please note: Simply because we look at the writings of Tacitus and Josephus, we don't include them in the Bible).
The Bible was NOT "edited"; the contents of the Epistles of Paul, the Gospels, and the other books have not been altered (Yes...there are DIFFERENT versions...King James, NAS, NIV, etc...but the source material still exists, so error can be eliminated in the various translations).
As I've already stated, Catholics arrogantly assume that the Bible would somehow not exist without their divine labors. What a preposterous and pompous assumption! Catholics did NOT write the Epistles of Paul, or the Gospels, or the remaining books...yet they retroactively insert themselves into the debate, and hope that no one notices.
Sorry...We noticed.
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:39AM
"Additionally, Protestant denominations (Baptists, for example) often insert or elevate specific creeds or doctrines as articles of faith and elevate those items to the level of scripture. "
If you knew what the creeds said, you would see that this is a false statement. Did you even READ the Westminster quote that I wrote?
Honestly, your position casts aside about 1900+ years of scholarship by good, believing Christians who studied the Word and sought to enlighten both their time and ours. No, what they did does NOT qualify as scripture. However, ignoring what they did and who they are removes an element from our modern faith, one that arrogantly presumes that we have all the answers we need.
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 9:39AM
You're inserting disagreement where there is none. That's not the first time.
If you're denying that MANY denominations create and elevate extra-scriptural creeds and doctrines to the level of scripture, or deny what is clearly written in scripture, then it is you who is casting aside history.
Studying, reflecting, and commenting on scripture is wonderful. It exposes one to the word of God, increases one's knowledge of the Word of God, and increases the volume of Christian philosophy and reasoning. Those are all admirable activities. However, when one's reading/exploration/etc., of scripture leads one down a false path, and that path is adopted as doctrine, or even an article of faith (such as with a certain creeds), then we have a problem. BTW< asserting that Christ is the only begotten Son of God, or that the Bible is the only source that Christians need, is not a "creed"...it's a fact.
No one is "ignoring" the works of great Christian philosophers of any/all Denominations. However, simply because someone is deemed "great" does NOT mean that they are correct. The best example of this would be John Calvin: a brilliant, dedicated man who was absolutely wrong about the T.U.L.I.P. theory, and who subsequently preached error.
As I have stated...and will repeat for your benefit, since you seem to be purposefully ignoring it:
1. I'm neither a Catholic NOR a protestant; I'm a Christian.
2. The Church I belong to does NOT follow any creeds or man-made doctrines (as do MANY denominations, including Catholicism). We rely ONLY on the Bible as a guide. This does NOT mean that we don't discuss things amongst ourselves, or with others. Far from it, we do this every week.
3. # 2 above is NOT a creed. It is not specifically written down anywhere, or codified by a group of self-appointed wise men into an official tenant.
You're clearly prejudiced against even trying to understand what I've explained in detail, more than once, so it would appear that we're at an impasse.
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 11:08AM
"The best example of this would be John Calvin: a brilliant, dedicated man who was absolutely wrong about the T.U.L.I.P. theory, and who subsequently preached error."
Here's the problem - each statement about TULIP has a solid Biblical underpinning, with good scriptural references that appear plain in scripture...and are derived DIRECTLY from scripture. It was a response to Armenius. It's not extra-Biblical, it's simply a way of interpreting the Word.
And what you just stated is a clear position of Armenianism (more or less) - a theological position that came about through councils that looked at scripture and attempted to form a theological position and stated it in a creed.
Your theological position is "informed" by using historical positions that aren't necessarily extra-Biblical. Creeds and councils aren't necessarily extra-Biblical. They simply clearly define set theological positions - such as TULIP or its opposing views.
The Reformers would agree with you about using scripture as their sole guide, but they believed that there are positions that need to be taken. They looked at scripture, pontificated and debated and wrote down what they believed it to mean.
All the while stating that what they were doing was NOT above scripture as an authority.
And they were all Protestants. You're trying to avoid a label that isn't a bad definition of what we are. You've even been "protesting" the Catholic position on scripture here on this board!
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 5:58PM
"We rely ONLY on the Bible as a guide. "
But the Bible no where claims that it is the sole source of guidance... Also, before the Bible (as we understand it today as Christians) wasn't even drawn together when St. Paul wrote in his Epistles. For some reason Galations (particularly Chapter 1) leapt out at me in this case...
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 10:35AM
Doctor Wrong,
It was you who used the word edit, remember Einstein?
You are really a poor obfuscator, by the way. I asked WHO decided WHICH books belonged in the Bible? Not who "fact-checked" them.
Since you are ignorant of Christian history, I will just tell you: It was the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church!
It was formally done at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397.) The canon of Scripture was reaffirmed by the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.
Doctor Right| 2.4.11 @ 10:47AM
Nick:
First of all, the Catholic Doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" is false. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...Insisting otherwise proves who's TRULY ignorant of Christian history. Christianity existed BEFORE Catholicism; they are NOT identical.
It's kind of like when I hear that someone is a devoted Catholic who's "well-versed" in scripture. My first thought is usually "If he's really well-versed, he wouldn't be Catholic."
Since I've dealt with you before, I know you like to play this little game of "Who said what when?" It's a tedious little game where you try and back someone into a corner to see if they'll admit something like "Catholics drafted the Bible".
Well, since that's NOT true, I can't say it. The books that comprise the Bible didn't need affirmation at the "Council of Whatever"...They were inspired by God, and written long before Catholicism existed.
Catholics like yourself seek credit for re-affirming the obvious. You're kind of like the people who sue someone for inventing something that they themselves claim to have "kinda' sorta'" thought about a few years ago...
Go sell dogma someplace else.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:48PM
Doctor Wrong,
I don't play games. I just state the facts.
And you, as usual, just obfuscate and refuse to answer simple questions. Because you have no answers.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:01PM
Many well versed non-Catholics who began investigating the Catholic faith ended up converting. Francis Beckwith down at Baylor and Scott Hahn come to mind.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:26PM
True, no one is obligated to put themselves under any hierarchy. But if one calls themselves Catholic, it stands to reason that they would place themselves in the institution that they profess to confess....
YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 1:45PM
One would think... but if that were reality we wouldn't have Pro-Abortion "Catholics" like the Kennedy's.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 9:52PM
Even Jesus selected Judas. The Church will not be free of betrayal and scandal until the end of time.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:01PM
This is true.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:40PM
Ted wrote: "True, no one is obligated to put themselves under any hierarchy."
I cannot quite agree with you. It seems to me that the obligation to obey the successors of the apostles is in Scripture itself. For example, Paul tells both Timothy and Titus to "rebuke" those in their charge. (2 Tim 4:2, Titus 1:13).
In Titus 2:15, Paul says "rebuke with all authority". That's a lot of authority. Do not neglect the authority of Titus and Timothy, and of their successors. The hierarchy in the church is clearly visible in scripture, for anyone with eyes to see.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:03PM
I chose my words poorly. Yes, the obligation is in the Sacred Scriptures. What I should have said is that we have the free will to either obey or to disobey said Scriptural obligation. We are not forced to obey.
BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 3:55PM
Good to hear that you "partake" of communion or the Lord's Supper often. It is interesting how many protestant denominations have the Lord's Supper only once or twice a year. Most have it once a month. I think it is best to have it every week or even more. And I see nothing inthe Bible that forbids followers of Jesus from having the Lord's Supper in their own homes.
I don't speak about it often. I am not a Baptist but I have spoken to maybe a half dozen Baptist ministers and asked them what they thought of this idea. Most of the time the minister and I would ahve a good conversation about it. However, on 2 separate occasions the ministers were actually very angry, adamant is the better word, that I would consider this.
I found this interesting but inthose 2 cases they could not cite Scripture to refute me but rather went on about following church leadership or church discipline and order.....
I think there are reasons for this that I will not get in to, but suffice it to say that the more a church practices the Lord's SUpper, the better I like it.
.."This do ye, as OFT as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. For as OFTEN as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come (1 Cor 11:25b, 26)
Vern Crisler | 2.3.11 @ 8:16PM
The analogy of communion with passover suggests that infrequent observance is better.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 10:04PM
Very interesting argument Vern, but it is weak when compared to so much evidence from the New Testament.
Jesus himself offered a "communion service" at Emmaus a day or so after the resurrection (that's pretty quick, not a year later).
And you're probably aware of Acts 2:42 "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer." What, once a year?
Also, in 1 Cor 11:27 ff, the Corinthians are partaking so often that they become careless., and in "not recognizing the body of the lord", some of them have died as a result.
BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 11:14PM
Jesus said in Mark 2:27 that "the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath." Jesus often showed in practice and in words that he kept the Spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
So, why do you think Jesus would link communion ONLY with Passover when he specifically said, As often as you do this, do it in remembrance of me?"
Are we to remember Him in this special way only once a year?
Yes, there is something about observing the Lord's Supper often that actually seems to rankle a small but significant portion of protestants or at least some protestant pastors and leaders. I've seen this before and it is strange indeed.
The argument linking passoverand communion is made by those who do not want to partake of the Lord's Supper often. But in every other way, the same people who make this argument follow the New Testament, not the Jewish Law. They neither observe Passover, the Jewish Law or any other Jewish holy day or festival day. This is incosistent practice and thinking. They link one of the only 2 "rituals" that Jesus wanted, the other being Baptism, with Passover and so minimize its practice.
I repeat what I said in my post, the more a church observes the Lord's Supper the better I like it!
BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 11:46PM
And, Frisbee, you cited good Scriptures. I appreciate it.
And though I think we should partake often of the Lord's Supper, in no way do I think we should trivialize it. One should not partake unless he has examined himself and is in prayer and in a deliberate and thankful frame of mind regarding worship and reverence for the Lord. A long as Christians do this, they can partake of the Lord's Supper often.
Vern Crisler | 2.4.11 @ 1:20AM
Frequent communion has the effect of making it routine. Rare communion might have the effect of making it a superstitious rite. Seems that every three months would avoid extremes.
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:40AM
The argument from the other side states differently - that communion is SO important, that it needs to be done as often as possible.
My opinion is somewhere in between.
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 10:01AM
Being Baptist... I do wish we celebrated the Lord's Supper more often. However, to do it at each service... I'm not sure. My grandparents are Church of Christ.. and they do it every service. When I would go to church with them the Lord's Supper was just the thing you did after the sermon and before the collection. It was habitual, not altogether spiritual. That's not to say that there weren't those who were spiritual and sincere about it.
As for the few Baptist preachers who were adamant to not have it each service... I'm not sure about. Having grown up Baptist I see nothing binding in our teachings that would say it's wrong. They were probably just hypersensitive too becomming ritualistic (something that many Baptists I know feel plagues the Catholic church). Although, as a leader of a flock, he probably feels responsible (and I would think rightly so) to make sure that our times of worship do not lead people into becomming habitual instead fo spiritual.
But... like I said... I do wish we did it more often.
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 11:10AM
That's the usual Protestant fear about communion - that doing it too often results in empty ritual, and I think it too often makes us run in the other direction.
the Presbyterian-PCA church I attend serves communion about once a month.
BackToBasics| 2.4.11 @ 7:03PM
I currently attend a church that serves communion once a month and I can say I am satisfied with it enough. But I would not attend a church that offered it less than once a month. If it was done every week, I'd like it better. If I believed I was not ready on any particular weekly service I would simply pass on it. I have done this on occasion when I felt I was not ready. There's no shame or problem with refusing on a given service for anyone who is sincere about partaking in a right way.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:18PM
Vern wrote: "Seems that every three months would avoid extremes."
As members of Christ's church, we are given a lot of freedom. Attendance at Mass is required only on Sundays and some other Solemnities. But we don't have to go to Communion or Confession except at least once a year. (But then, if you don't go, then, ahem, your spouse wonders what you did.)
BackToBasics| 2.4.11 @ 6:40PM
I covered the trivialization of it in my reply to Frisbee. As long as a person confesses their sins and is sincerely trying to be close to the Lord, I think it is better to have the Lord's Supper often, even once a week. I think the pastors should allow for the service even if it is at a separate time than the regular sermon and let each person decide if they are ready or not.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:11PM
BacktoBasics - thanks. I try.
BackToBasics| 2.4.11 @ 6:53PM
You helped and that does matter.
One last point I'll make about the Lord's Supper is that it has the potential to protect the Church from false people who would want to come in and do the church harm.
I knew a woman years ago who became a born again Christian after years of being involved in the "black arts." I will not go into what she did but the Lord did save her.
She told me that she would never partake of communion or the Lord's Supper prior to being saved. She said this is true of many others with her background. She said it was because the wine represented the blood of Jesus and she was "forbidden" to partake of it.
I can only take her word for it since I did not know her prior to her coming to church. But I think it is safe to say that if she was telling the truth, since I do not see why she would lie about it. So, since Jesus asked us to partake of this simple but profound ceremony and since it also seems to offer a certain amount of protection against "wolves" coming into the church, I think that there is both blessing and safety in partaking of the Lord's Supper at church or at home; for those whose hearts and minds are ready for it.
BackToBasics| 2.4.11 @ 6:54PM
typo -- safe to say that she was telling the truth
Bill| 2.3.11 @ 9:16AM
What is the basis for Ann Rice's alleged belief that Catholicism is "deservedly infamous?" Is Catholicism infamous to anyone other than Ann Rice and others of her ilk?
Pope Testiculus 1| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM
The basis for her statement is the idea that the Catholic Church, an a HUMAN institution, has done much that is contrary to Christian values.
And she would be correct.
PJ| 2.3.11 @ 10:17AM
Bill,
I believe her beef against the Catholic Church is its stance against homosexual acts, artificial birth-control.... the usual stuff that liberal Catholics have problems w/understanding the Church's position.
hunter| 2.3.11 @ 9:30AM
A good example is one I saw on tv several years ago. There was a protest against a abortion clinic and the tv interviewer asked one of the pro-abortion women their veiws on the matter. She replied " The Church (God), is going to have to listen to the will of the people. That things have changed over the years and things are diffrent now". Well I'm sure God will reconize he has been perhaps a little lax in not putting out a updated version of the new 21st century version of the bible. Maybe is is being written at Harvurd right now.
Doctor Right| 2.3.11 @ 9:58AM
Kudos to Mr. Olmsted for refusing to bow to the current zeitgeist, and for steadfastly enforcing the rules by which the Catholic Church operates!!!
Liberal Catholics are in an uproar? Who cares?!?! They're "CINOs"..."Catholics in name only". They abandoned their faith years ago, but like to hide behind it when it suits their political purposes. As it says in Matthew 7:16, "By their fruits you shall know them", and Liberal Catholics are rotten to the core.
Kudos to Ms. Fabrizio for the oft-stated but little followed admonition for Liberal Catholics to leave the Church and find another that suits their purposes.
I have many disagreements with Catholicism, but abortion is not one of them. I applaud the RCC's efforts to stop the wholesale slaughter of innocents. It is one issue that truly transcends belief, denomination, and faith. ANYONE who considers themselves to be a believing Christian should be against this abomination.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:30PM
True words. Abortion. The slaughter of the Holy Innocents continues...
Mimi| 2.3.11 @ 3:25PM
BRAVO !!!
Nick| 2.3.11 @ 8:22PM
Doctor Wrong,
What happened? Did you take happy pills today?
You sound down right reasonable on this thread. Congratulations!
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 10:53AM
Nick,
He's usually happy, articulate, and reasonable. When it comes to religious threads though, he tends to be somewhat grumpy, easily irritable, generally reasonable, and articulate. Perhaps this is because he has strong feelings on the matter, which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:15PM
Ted,
You evidently haven't endured his anti-Catholic bigotry first hand.
I, and several other regular commenters here, like Teflon93 and John II, have. I don't make that claim lightly either.
Doctor Wrong only has strong feelings when it comes to Catholics. He is more than willing to believe anything bad the New York Slimes prints about the Catholic Church. He's a former Catholic, who evidently has issues with his parents.
He has written many vile things concerning the Sacraments and Our Lady. He needs our pity, and our prayers.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:10PM
Nick,
I have seen his.... comments. And done my best to offer it up to God.
Remember, even if he has written vile things about the Sacraments and Our Lady, they both can take it. After all, we are talking about a woman who witnessed her innocent Son crucified. Jesus and Mary know the depths of his heart better than we do.
Speaking of Mr. Teflon and Mr. Koehl for that matter, I haven't seen him recently. I do remember when Teflon and Stuart Koehl got into a discussion and Stuart called him Mr. Non-stick. I have to admit I laughed....
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 6:27PM
Ted,
I pray for your patience!
Still, I'm going to keep defending the faith, maybe not as...umm....strident....as I have in the past. And with more charity. I don't want to start looking like CINO Tim*/Clint*, now, do I? Ha-ha!
God Bless!
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:46PM
I pray for my patience, too. Perhaps God uses people like Dr. (Often, but not always) Right as a tool for my continuing education in His School of Patience. And at the same time uses me as a simple tool to cultivate Charity in our good Dr.
No matter what we do, let us never descend to be CINOs!
mames| 2.3.11 @ 10:05AM
'Not a Roman member but I support the Bishop's consistency. Would that the rest of the church do the same when so called catholic candidates and elected officials openly support abortion and homosexual "rights".
Citizen Jerry| 2.3.11 @ 10:13AM
"The Catholic Church is the largest institution in the world, and probably the oldest still in existence."
Lisa, I hope it's just an oversight, but you seem to have forgotten the millions of Orthodox Christians worldwide who have been proclaiming the truth since 32 A.D. Just sayin'
PJ| 2.3.11 @ 10:26AM
It may not be an oversight depending on which angle you are viewing it. There are many Orthodox Churches around the world who are in union w/Rome except of course the Greek, Russian, Ukrainian Churches. (probably others, & that may change too within our lifetime.)
Evanston2| 2.3.11 @ 11:16AM
Citizen Jerry is partially right. Rome has no claim to being the oldest institution -- it must share that with the Orthodox. Where Jerry is wrong is that Romanism may indeed be the largest, but that depends on whether you count official membership (which Rome counts as anyone who is baptized) or actual church attendance. Plus, as PJ says, if another church is "in union" with yours, how formal must it be? Most of reformed protestantism is "in union" in the Creeds. Conversely, many commenters here are critical of "liberal Catholics." Are they really "in union" or are they really out of union with Rome? Many here have said that such should be thrown out of "the Church" but since it fails to enforce its own standards the capital "C" is laughable. The bottom line is if any member of my church said something in our constitution is wrong, they could attend but we would drop them from the membership roll. Lisa should stick with her area of expertise, which is criticizing military men for their lack of church lady etiquette.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:36AM
" When you are getting kicked from the rear it means you are in front."
Fulton J. Sheen
Appleby| 2.3.11 @ 11:43AM
"Objects in the Mirror are Losing" -- Dr. Wolfgang Ulrich, Audisport North America.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 10:07PM
Yes, please don't forget the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches. I lived in Israel for a while and met many fine Maronite Catholics from Lebanon.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:35PM
The Catholic Church, despite the Great Schism, included our Orthodox brothers and sisters from 32 AD. Not sure that a slight was meant on the author's part, although I don't presume to speak for her.
And there are many Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome. And both Rome and the Orthodox Churches not currently in communion with Rome have been making great strides in recent years towards repairing the Great Schism.
I highly recommend any Roman Rite adherent check out an Eastern Rite Catholic Liturgy or an Orthodox Liturgy. They are beautiful.
Citizen Jerry| 2.3.11 @ 4:00PM
Yes they are.
Frisbee| 2.3.11 @ 10:14PM
Citizen Jerry wrote: "Orthodox Christians ... proclaiming the truth since 32 A.D."
I am aware of the first extant recording of the words "Catholic Church" in the letters of Ignatius (disciple of St John). And of course the Nicene Creed says "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church".
But I do not know when the first recorded use of "Orthodox Church" was. The earliest use of the word I can recall was pertaining to "Orthodox Faith", but not the "Orthodox Church". (I am thinking of the Desert Fathers, etc.)
Too Many Tims| 2.3.11 @ 10:16AM
Luke 20
The Authority of Jesus Questioned
One day as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple courts and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, together with the elders, came up to him. “Tell us by what authority you are doing these things,” they said. “Who gave you this authority?”
He replied, “I will also ask you a question. Tell me: John’s baptism—was it from heaven, or of human origin?”
They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Why didn’t you believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ all the people will stone us, because they are persuaded that John was a prophet.”
So they answered, “We don’t know where it was from.”
Jesus said, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/pa.....ersion=NIV
Ryan| 2.3.11 @ 12:14PM
Not the applicable verses to the situation.
Matt 18: 15-18 - among others has far more value in providing the framework for correction of unrepentant church members.
YeloStalyn| 2.3.11 @ 12:22PM
They are in the context that it is not up to man to dictate that whch is right but for God alone. That must be understood BEFORE you can have grounds to justly deal with "wayward sheep".
I think that is what he was getting at more so than the "rightness" of the excommunication.
You are correct, however, that once God's supremecy is established, there are better verses that address unrepentant church members.
Too Many Tims| 2.3.11 @ 1:37PM
Thanks Ryan. Very good.
Dealing With Sin in the Church
15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.
Vern Crisler | 2.3.11 @ 8:21PM
Notice that the example Jesus gave is a private sin -- something observed by only one other person.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:49PM
Vern, the relevant verses appear to apply to both public and private sin... It appears that the verses imply that the initial attempt at fraternal correction should be done privately...
Kind of like the old military saying: praise in public, crucify in private....
Petronius| 2.3.11 @ 11:00AM
We'd all best hope that Judge Vinsons decision to 86 Obamacare sticks with the top 9. Should we lose this one Dr. Berwick will be in control of all hospitals in the country. On that day, none will remain Catholic. The only way to stop that would be moving the patients out and burning them all down before the government take over.
bill carson| 2.3.11 @ 11:15AM
Good article by a good Roman Catholic. Bless her and bless that bishop in Phoenix!
scythe| 2.3.11 @ 12:08PM
And while we are questioning the NYT and their overt hatred of all things Catholic and by extension Christian, it's time we begin to ask ourselves why the hatred is allowed to be spewed by NON-CHRISTIANS and those nominally so, without the charge of BIGOTRY being leveled loudly and often. The canard of Islamophobe is certainly tossed about with abandon, isn't it? Here's an experiment: the next time the NYT or any of its minions are engaged in Catholic bashing they should be told to halt or....the Koran will be burned. See how fast that gets their attention. Two birds with one stone. The bashing will stop, they will be reminded how the lack of courage is not necessary to bash Catholics/Christians, and our Muslim neighbors will keep them in line. They wouldn't listen to Christians. But you bet your rear-end the Muslim contingent will have an influence.
Richard Baker| 2.3.11 @ 12:56PM
So many of those who describe themselves as "devout" Catholics are not. In America, too many "devout" members of the Church pick and choose that which they believe. When I hear that someone say that they are Catholic and pro-abortion, as an example, I further realize that Satan indeed lives.
DaveS| 2.3.11 @ 6:40PM
For one example - yes.
carolinem| 2.3.11 @ 1:04PM
Why hasn't the Church excommunicated all the bishops who lied and protected child rapist priests that they moved from parish to parish? Why hasn't the Church excommunicated Catholic politicians who advocate and vote for abortion? It's easy to pick on a nun, but Church leaders have no courage when it comes to dealing with powerful people or their own comrades.
scythe| 2.3.11 @ 1:54PM
Dead on. They lost a lot of credibility for not doing so. Read Bella Dodd's book published in the 1950's- communist activist would converted to Catholicism. Revealed how the Communist Party recruited over a thousand homosexuals to infiltrate the Church by pursuing the priesthood. The Communist Party and communism have been responsible for the collapse of traditional virtues and institutions for over a half century. It's now become too glaring and horrid to ignore or pretend otherwise. The reason why the Church ignored it was because many were placed there to DESTROY. The Church needs to be more forthcoming about who their internal enemy has been and let the public in on the plot and the outcome. Their problem is they think their protracted silence will make the problem go away. It only made it grow larger and larger especially since the lefties in the Mastodon Media were natural enemies.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 2:10PM
You are correct to a certain extent. The KGB and other satellite Warsaw Pact security services tried (and did) infiltrate the Church, with varying degrees of success. This also happened to our Orthodox brothers and sisters as well.
As for those Bishops, I wish there were a short, easy explanation. The truth is, some Bishops tried to protect the Church's name, when they should have been protecting the innocent first and foremost.
Some moved priests and allowed them to continue in ministry because they had been assured by psychiatrists and psychologists that the priest in question had been "cured." Much of this was based on the psychiatric/psychological knowledge at the time, which was not as extensive as we have now. And in truth, it seems that back then abusing a child was treated as similar to violating one's vows of celibacy with an adult women: as simply a sin and a moral failing. It was that, and it was far more.
Also, please bear in mind that the vast majority of reported abuse was not in fact pedophilia (although there were cases of that). If you take the time to read the studies, it becomes quickly obvious that the vast majority of the abuse cases were not pedophilia, but rather homosexual in nature.
One sees rather quickly that it was adult male priests with homosexual inclinations preying on middle school and high school aged boys/young men.
scythe| 2.3.11 @ 6:26PM
"that the vast majority of the abuse cases were not pedophilia, but rather homosexual in nature." That's why the left wants to do to the Boy Scouts what was done to the Church. They howl about the Scouts, and they howl about the Church. Nothing outs a covert agenda faster than overt hypocrisy.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 2:29PM
"Insurance companies, child advocacy groups and religion scholars say there is no evidence that Catholic clergy are more likely to be involved in sexual misconduct than other clergy or professionals. Yet ongoing civil litigation of decades-old cases against a church with deep pockets keeps the Catholic Church in the headlines.
“There is no plausible evidence that Catholic priests are gangs of sexual predators, as they are being portrayed,” said Pennsylvania State University Prof. Philip Jenkins, eminent religion and history scholar, and a non-Catholic who’s studied the church’s abuse problems for 20 years.
Jenkins said there has been no formal study comparing denominations for rates of child abuse. However, insurers have been assessing the risks since they began offering riders on liability policies in the 1980s. Two of the largest insurers report no higher risks in covering Catholic churches than Protestant denominations.
Wisconsin-based Church Mutual Insurance Co. has 100,000 client churches and has seen a steady filing of about five sexual molestation cases a week for more than a decade, even though its client base has grown.
“It would be incorrect to call it a Catholic problem,” said Church Mutual’s risk control manager, Rick Schaber. “We do not see one denomination above another. It’s equal. It’s also equal among large metropolitan churches and small rural churches.”
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:27PM
carolinem asks why and why...
It's my fault. I have not prayed for them enough. Sorry. Please let's pray harder. Bishops have the toughest job in the world.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 1:07PM
Same Goes For Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Reformed Druids, etc.
Ted| 2.3.11 @ 1:56PM
For an interesting take on all this check out today's article at The Catholic Thing by Todd Hartch. He discusses Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Sapientiae Christianae. In it, Leo defined the duties of Catholics in civil society"
This is tangentially related in that it applies to all the Catholics in Name Only (CINOs) and especially CINO politicians. It's worth a look.
BackToBasics| 2.3.11 @ 4:06PM
I've said something similar before but I think it bears repeating with this article that hatred of Christianity is at the root of the liberals "philosophies."
It is why liberals can support any religion that is not Christian with the exception if Judaism. But even Judaism is not hated as much as Christianity is.
It is also at the root of their hatred for America since our constituional form of government is perceived as too much in the Christian camp. Or at least it allows for too much freedom and with too much freedon there is the possibility of massive movements in the forms of conversions and revivals.
Just got to have that control one way or another, the left thinks.
It is why they hate Republicans since Republicans are "perveived" as more Christian. I think that is debateable but that is the perception nevertheless.
"If the world hate you, you know that it hated me before it hated you. John 15:18
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 11:00AM
Remember also John 16:33
"These things I have spoken to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you shall have distress: but have confidence, I have overcome the world."
Larry| 2.3.11 @ 4:38PM
It's easy for conservatives to rally round the church when it rails against abortion. But I wonder if that support erodes when it comes to divorce. Divorced people also excommunicate themselves because they have defied the teachings of the church and the gospel.
"And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery." Mat. 19:3.
Likewise those who practice any form of birth control are excommunicated.
Anyone want to take a headcount to see who is still a Catholic in good standing?
Lisa, how about you?
lisafab| 2.3.11 @ 5:01PM
Larry,
Guilty as charged: I am a Catholic in good standing...sorry!
I participate in the Sacrament of Penance once a month and the Holy Eucharist every day. You'd be surprised how many of us are out there.
Nick| 2.3.11 @ 7:55PM
Larry,
Getting divorced does not result in latae sententiae. Getting married again, i.e. bigamy, does. It leads to an adulterous relationship, a mortal sin, making one unworthy to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.
If a someone's spouse leaves them, and divorces him, that person can still receive the Sacraments, as long as they don't "remarry" or commit mortal sin.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 6:07PM
Larry bloviates,"Likewise those who practice any form of birth control are excommunicated."
Wrong Anti-Catholic Agenda Buffoon.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 6:13PM
"If I am divorced can I still receive communion?
If your marriage was not annulled and you chose to remarry, then no. Otherwise it is perfectly acceptable to receive the Eucharist."
Shut Your Anti-Catholic Pie Hole Larry.
Larry| 2.3.11 @ 7:30PM
Wrong again. Unlike you Clint, I know my church laws and abide by them.
Birth control is a mortal sin and the person who commits a mortal sin is not allowed to receive the Eucharist unless that person confesses their sin and exhibits a desire not to repeat the sin.
As for divorce..what part of Matthew 19:3 don't you understand?
I love my church and am tired of cafeteria Catholics posing as good church members.
Unlike you, I don't believe that rudeness and name calling are Catholic virtues.
Nick| 2.3.11 @ 8:19PM
Larry,
See my response, above.
Latae sententiae is a legal judgement that the sinner puts upon themselves. It is automatic and one must go to his bishop to become reconciled with the Church.
Using birth control does not require one to go to the bishop. Receiving the Sacrament of Penance is all that is required, as long as it is heartfelt and you are truly remorseful.
Only an annulment issued by the Church will allow a "remarried" Catholic to again be in communion with Christ's Church. Simply being divorced, as long as you are not the one who initiated it, does not incur latae sententiae excommunication.
Vern Crisler | 2.3.11 @ 8:27PM
What right does the Roman church have to grant annulments? Where does Jesus make any exceptions?
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:18PM
"What makes a marriage invalid?
Some common reasons for annulment in the Catholic Church are:
1. At least one partner didn't fully & freely consent.
2. Someone wasn't mature enough to understand the full extent of what they were doing.
3. There was never intent to be faithful.
4. One or both partners did not intend to be open to children.
Obviously, the Church places a tremendous value on marriage. Couples seeking marriage are required to attend pre-marriage education sessions precisely so they can be fully informed about what they're committing to.
Note that it's important to distinguish between what the couple intends when they marry, and deviations later in the marriage. "
Vern Crisler | 2.4.11 @ 1:23AM
So again, where does the RC get the authorization to annul a marriage for the reasons you cited? Jesus didn't list any exceptions did he?
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:37AM
Mr. Crisler,
Yes, Christ did list an exception. In the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter 19, Verse 9, Christ gives the exception for divorce in the Mosaic Law.
Most Scripture translations list the exception as the act of fornication, or adultery. But, the better translation is illicit. The Greek word used in verse 9 is porneia, which means impurity.
Christ was referring to all the forbidden marriages in Leviticus that are in some degree incestous. If a marriage is forbidden, it was never legal in the first place. Therefore, the two were never married in the eyes of God.
This is where the Catholic Church gets the power to annul marriages. A Church tribunal decides if the marriage was licit in the first place. If they find it wasn't, the marriage is declared null and void, i.e. it never happened. Just like Jewish marriages were in Christ's time.
Hope that clears it up for you.
Vern Crisler | 2.4.11 @ 9:16AM
So it's not just a matter of unchastity, or what part of Matt. 19:3 don't we understand?
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 10:11AM
Mr. Crisler,
I don't understand the question.
Would you please elaborate?
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:25PM
Vern: the Church does not have nor claim to have the power to un-do a real marriage. It has the authority to declare that a supposed marriage never existed because of defects in the original vows, etc.
So even the Church admits that it cannot dissolve an actual true sacramental marriage.
Larry| 2.3.11 @ 10:35PM
Nick,
My understanding in regard to the birth control issue is that a person can not receive absolution unless they have a sincere resolve not to commit the sin again. So if a person practices birth control and intends to continue that practice, they are not absolved from their sin.
I don't understand your reference to latae sententiae excommunication. That can occur only under very specific circumstances. But a person can be denied the sacraments under a wide variety of circumstances.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:03AM
Larry,
Yes, I was not very clear. My apologies.
You are correct about making a sincere confession and resolving not to commit the sin again.
Latae sententiae excommunication happens automatically to anyone who has, commits, or assists in procuring an abortion. It is not a decree that is handed down from some legal proceeding. It is not a declaration from a bishop.
Anyone guilty of such an offense must go to his bishop to be reconciled with the Church, receive Christ in the Eucharist, and receive other sacraments. They cannot simply make a good confession to be reconciled. It takes more than that.
Those who practice birth control must not receive the Eucharist. They are committing a grave sin. But they are not automatically excommunicated. If they know what the teaching of the Church is, and reject that teaching; and/or fall to temptation, and consciously disobey Christ's teachings, they are guilty of mortal sin and cannot receive the Eucharist. They are not in a state of Grace.
As I stated, if they make a sincere confession, and act of contrition, which includes resolving not to sin again, then they may receive the Sacraments. This is what I meant when I wrote: heartfelt and you are truly remorseful.
Receiving the Eucharist is usually a private act. What I mean by that is this: A priest almost always doesn't know if the person in front of them is in a state of Grace. It is up to the individual to use the gifts of the Church to make himself worthy. But, anyone can profane the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord, and only he and God will know.
Public officials are completely differerent, of course. So are married people. They made a public vow of fidelity. If they violate this through divorce, they must reconcile with the Church, either through annulment, or don't get "married" again. This was my main point, that divorced Catholics are not automatically excommunitcated, latae sententiae. They can be, if they continue to compound their sin by taking the Eucharist unworthily.
(If it wasn't their fault, i.e. they didn't want to get divorced, their spouse did; as long as they are chaste, and wait for their spouse to make ammends, or die, they are in communion with the Church, and can receive the Sacraments.)
Catholics who are public figures can be excommunicated if they publicly refuse to accept the teachings of Church. As was stated by others in this thread, this starts with educating them privately by their priest and bishop. Then comes public calls for repentence from the bishop. Finally, excommunication.
This is starting to happen in this counrtry, Praise the Lord!
I hope I was more clear this time, my apologies again.
God Bless!
Evanston2| 2.4.11 @ 1:16PM
Nick, Any thoughts on this Flannery O'Connor quote: “Well, if [the Eucharist] is just a symbol, to hell with it.”
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:44PM
Evanston2,
Sorry, I'm not very well read. I had to look up who she was.
So, I guess I have no thoughts on this quote.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:40PM
Evanston2: You must act according to your best lights.
If the Eucharist is just a symbol, then why would Jesus command us to do it? And why would he lie to us in the very minutes before his Agony?
Have you ever noticed the precision in His words? Jesus didn't say "this is my blood". Why not? Because there was more than that in his hands, so he said "this is the cup of my blood".
Alex Jones is a fascinating case. He followed his liturgical studies, and looked for a modern church that performed the truest liturgy. He finally narrowed it down to...as he put it... oh no, not THAT one!
If the eucharist is just a symbol, then christianity was a step down from the manna in the desert.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:13PM
This also happened to Francis Beckwith and Scott Hahn, among others.
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 12:03AM
Frisbee, I like your answer. Detailed. No new thoughts, but the implicit assumptions are important. For starters, how many Roman Catholic ceremonies have no Biblical basis? I'm not just talking about rites here, I'm talking about the whole system including relics, veneration of saints, "blessing" of objects, prayer beads, lighting of candles, etc. How many of these things are "symbolic" in the sense that their intent is to remind us of God, but they (in themselves) have no power or blessing specified in the Bible? Well, a great many. So it's funny that Ms. O'Connor could say "to hell with" a ceremony that is "just" symbolic (though that is not my belief -- read on). Let's really examine this: the entire Jewish sacrificial system was symbolic. Christ tells us that the whole of what we know as the Old Testament points to Him (symbolically) and that He fulfilled it (Matt 5:17). Without Him, it is all empty symbol. When we specifically examine the Eucharist/communion, it is important to note that Christ was re-interpreting the symbology of the Seder meal. The "why" is provided by our Lord: we are to "Do this in remembrance of me" (Luke 22:19). To say that this is insufficient -- I won't do what the Lord commands unless I get a blessing that meets Rome's definition -- indicates a major league obedience problem. Further, can remembering Christ, His sacrifice for us, ever be "just" a symbol? Aren't such thoughts, in themselves, holy and a blessing? Again, this would seem to contradict the entire Old Testament law, without doubt the entire sacrificial system in their pointing to Christ. So Flannery O'Connor's question is preposterous (if not blasphemous) on its face, as if remembering what Christ did for us can be anything but a blessing. I do, however, agree that anything Christ commands is itself a blessing -- how could God command something that is not a blessing? The notion is ridiculous. Biblically we can see this in the reverse in 1 Cor 11:27-30, that to partake "in an unworthy manner" is to bring evil on yourself. But Rome does not invalidate Protestant communion based upon its compliance with the Bible, no sir. Instead, it relies on Greek philosophy (accidens, substans, etc.) and claims that one must comply with Aristotle's beliefs to receive true blessing from this rite. This is the same sort of devotion to Greek thought that made Rome hold to geocentrism and suppress the likes of Galileo and heliocentrism. And "wisdom" of this sort is what Rome claims as making its version of communion special, and that you must believe the Greeks to be blessed. Simply put, Rome holds to the traditions of men to invalidate Protestant communion. And it makes sense. The Eucharist is a control mechanism. After all, there can be no mass without it -- it wouldn't be a mass. A homily is optional, almost an afterthought, so while Christ tells us that "Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (Matt 4:4) Rome instead relies on the Eucharist in its supposed battle against Satan. What is the greatest punishment I could inflict on a Catholic? No, not to withhold a Bible, oh no. To withhold the Eucharist.
Overall, I agree with you that communion is definitely not symbolic, and that Christ is really present and it is really a blessing to partake. I disagree that Rome has the "truest liturgy": to deny Christ's "why" (to do this in remembrance), to replace it with your own "why" (categorize the rite as spiritual booster shot, as I would summarize Rome's view) and claim the right to invalidate Protestant obedience is at best, arrogant. We are to examine ourselves (1 Cor 11:28) before we partake. Those who do so in repentance and grateful love for Christ's sacrificial death (1 Cor 11:26) are blessed. Rites that are faithful to this are true. Those people and rites that point not to Christ but to external benefits are like those who followed Him for a free meal (John 6:26) and not Him and His Word (John 6:68-69). So you, Frisbee, say that "You must act according to your best lights" but many have no light and reap only condemnation.
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 5:59PM
Evanston2,
A few thoughts.
I don't think Christ was "re-interpreting the symbology of the Seder meal." He instituted the Passover, He was God. What was there to re-interpret? Am I misunderstanding your point?
Also, the Catholic Church did not "supress" Galileo and heliocentrism. It condemned teaching it as a scientific fact, rather than just a hypothesis, which is was at the time. Galileo did not prove heliocentrism. Read these links:
http://webcache.googleusercont.....google.com
http://webcache.googleusercont.....google.com
Finally, if you don't need "a blessing that meets Rome's definition," why do you need any church's blessing?
Your statement, "Further, can remembering Christ, His sacrifice for us, ever be 'just' a symbol?," taken to its logical conclusion, would imply that you could just take a slice of Wonder bread and some Riunite, and fulfill Christ's command, "Do this in rememberance of me," whenever you felt like doing so, no?
Why must we do this remberance in a church?
Evanston2| 2.10.11 @ 2:59AM
Nick, Seriously, good questions. Regarding Seder, Wikipedia has a good entry. When God institutes Passover Seder in Exodus 13:6-10, He tells them to observe it "because of what the Lord did for me when I came out of Egypt." Christ did not change the elements of the meal, but changed the remembrance to focus specifically on His death. Regarding Galileo, sure, Rome didn't
"suppress" him -- if you're ever put on trial, asked to recant, and put under house arrest you can provide your own adjective to describe the experience. But my point (which you avoid) is that Rome applied Greek "science" to matters of faith. Yours is a "true rite" because Aristotle would approve. The blessing I need is from God, not Rome. So I seek to obey God's Word. Regarding Biblical conduct of the sacrament, in addition to Christ's example and instructions we also have Paul's reiteration and warnings in 1 Cor 10:16-17 and 11:17-31. It is best to have clergy, as representatives of Christ, speak beforehand about proper repentance and relationship with Christ (to partake in a worthy manner) and reiterate His Word during the rite (so we are fully cognizant of His command and blessing). In a pinch a layman could do the same, blessing is from God, not your priest's consecration. We use a thin unleavened cracker and grape juice, not fermented wine. If these are not available, most churches (including Rome itself) recognize extraordinary circumstances such as for POWs, etc. You mention Wonder Bread and Riunite as substitutes "taken to its logical conclusion." No, you are not being logical. Conformance with God's Word is just that. You use the elements as directed, you say what He said. You do not add your own crap. You ask "Why must we do this remberance [sic] in a church?" Answer: there is no "must" -- even for Catholics. Is Mass always held in a church building, or are there outdoor Masses? There are outdoor Catholic services here in the Midwest, Nick, and during your time in the Army you may have attended some in tents and common buildings. A church is a convenient place to meet, built for the purpose. The Lord's Supper was not held in a specially designed building, there is no such requirement. I repeat: Rome's requirements regarding the "true rite" are not Biblical. Further, traditions like Eucharistic/Perpetual Adoration actually do demonstrate the "logical conclusion" of Rome's adoption of Greek ideas. Rome does what Christ doesn't command and refuses to recognize rites that actually do what He commands. This abuse of a sacrament is sacrilege.
Nick| 2.10.11 @ 2:52PM
Evanston2,
If you mean that God used the Passover Seder meal to prefigure the Eucharist, we are in agreement. The main part of the Seder meal was that the lamb was to be eaten, just as Christ would command His followers do, regarding His Body and Blood and the Bread of Life, in the Gospel of Saint John, chapter 6.
You obviously didn't read the links I provided. Galileo was put on trial for breaking the commitment he made not to claim heliocentrism as a fact, he could discuss the theory all he wanted. He broke his word, and was punished for it. Too harshly, as the Church has apologized for.
There is no "Greek 'science'" or Aristotle in the Catholic Mass.
You are being way too literal with what I wrote, legalistic, one might say. Maybe this will help: Why must we do this rememberance within a church, i.e. a community? I apologize for not being as precise as you seem to require.
But, I notice you did not refute my main point, that you believe you can perform the Lord's Supper whenever you feel like it, as long as you follow His "rite", as you interpret the Scriptures.
Your requirement that you use "a thin unleavened cracker and grape juice" is just another man-made doctrine. Just because they were eating the unleavend bread of the Passover meal doesn't mean it was mandatory. Christ did not specifically command we use only unleavend bread. Plus, wine was served during the Pasch, so, you are only following half of what Christ actually did that night.
Also, why don't you have lamb and bitter herbs, and the rest of the Seder meal at your communion, as Christ and His disciples were? How do you know that He didn't mean repeat the whole meal in rememberance of Him. Again, this is your community's interpretation of the Lord's command.
If all the Protestants who claim sole Scriptura as doctrine were correct, there wouldn't be over 35,000 Christian denominations in the world. We could ALL just go to the Bible for all the answers, right?
By the way, what do the Scriptures say about in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and nuclear weapons, Evanston2?
Evanston2| 2.11.11 @ 4:58AM
Nick, Regarding Seder, yes, you've got it right. Glad you learned something.
Regarding Galileo, after I mentioned Galileo this is how you responded: "the Catholic Church did not
'suppress' Galileo and heliocentrism. OK then. If I told you to not teach something as a fact, but you wanted to, wouldn't that be a form of "suppression?" I ignored your differentiation between theory and fact because it is not germane: Galileo was suppressed (and put on trial and then house arrest) regarding this issue. How effen clear does this need to be?
Don't you know that the whole accidens & substans (or if you wish, accidents and substance) are from Greek philosophy? If you were ignorant before, my response to Frisbee delved into this. You responded to this with "a few thoughts" on the 9th but evidently did some speed reading again. Sacra vaca, dude, Rome used the terminology from the Greeks purposefully. Even if Rome is right, its requirement that I believe this formulation in order to have a genuine rite is extra-Biblical. Seriously, Protestants follow Christ's commands and that's not good enough for you, is it?
Oh, I'm too literal and legalistic? You asked for details regarding how to follow Christ's command to observe the Lord's Supper. I provided details on how my church does it. I didn't say they were a "requirement." If you accept that the Lord's Supper is a Seder meal (which you do now) and you want to have elements for it, wouldn't you say it's a good idea to parallel what was done? If I were legalistic I would say that the Eucharist is invalid because Rome uses 1 cup and the Disciples probably did not, or some such crap. But I haven't and wouldn't, invalidating the rites of others because they aren't sacerdotally correct is Rome's game.
And you tell me now that your "main point"
was that you could observe the Lord's Supper "whenever you felt like doing so, no?" No, that was your last point in a list. And you qualified your question in the preceding sentence with the statement "taken to its logical conclusion, [this] would imply." So your alleged main point is something you've conjured up by implication from a reductio ad absurdum. OK, I'll take this on. How often does Rome teach that the Eucharist can be observed? At a frequency far more often than that done in Protestant churches, Nick. Oh, but lets get particular about my logic: if I follow the Bible we could end up observing it all the time, right? No. I mentioned 1 Cor 11 in my last answer, and if you'd bothered to read it you'd see in verses 7, 18 and 20 that Paul provides guidance for "when you come together." Verses 23-30 definitely deal with communion/Eucharist, so whether you believe the "love feast" was the same thing or not the FREQUENCY (which supposedly is the focus of your "main point" -- but I suspect you'll go off on an unrelated point again) would normally be weekly per Acts 20:7. That is the Biblical answer, but if it was an extremely important issue then we would expect it to be stressed more. That is, unless you like building entire doctrines (like my Eucharist is good, your communion isn't) based on a few Bible passages and a lot of human speculation that is called "tradition."
You ask "How do you know that He didn't mean repeat the whole meal in rememberance of Him. Again, this is your community's interpretation of the Lord's command." No, following what our Lord says in the Bible is not an "interpretation." It is obedience. That's why I mentioned Flannery O'Connor's statement. To refuse to do what the Lord commands is evil. Christ says "Do this in remembrance of me." The first 2 words are "Do this." Christ did not mention the other parts of the Seder meal.
I guess it's too hard for you to understand. The irony is that you not only prefer Rome's ceremony, which adds all sorts of extra-Biblical detail and interpretation to its rite, but believe that our Lord left some critical stuff out. Seems He screwed up and Rome came to the rescue. Good thing Rome is here to tell us all which rites are valid and which are not.
Your question about denominations is a common one. Allow me to reverse it for a moment: how many "cafeteria Catholics" do you know? Or how can Nancy Pelosi claim to be a "good Catholic" when she clearly defies Rome's positions on many issues? Well, in this sense the unity within Romanism is assumed. In many cases, regarding actual beliefs, it may be in name only. Again, Augustine's commentary regarding the visible and invisible church apply.
Let's go a bit further: how many different Orders are there for priests and nuns? How many parishes emphasize social justice and the like (i.e., are "liberal") and how many are socially conservative? Are these, in a sense, different denominations?
Romanism, I assert, is only united in reality by its sacraments. As you know, these are scripted in great detail. And if Rome strictly enforced theological unity, it would deny the Eucharist, etc, to people like Ms. Pelosi. Then how many new "catholic" churches would emerge?
I say all this to assert that the difference between 1 (Rome) and 35,000 is more superficial, and not as great, as it may appear.
But your question was very particular: it was in regard to churches that hold to Sola (not "sole") Scriptura. Well, as the sacraments are a point of unity within Romanism, actually it is the doctrine of Sola Fide that is the dividing line in protestantism. If you claim to hold to the Bible (Sola Scriptura), passages like Gal 1:8 tell us that the Gospel is the dividing line. Faith alone in Christ alone, not in your own works, but Christ's death on the cross per Col 1:13-14, Eph 1:7, and Rom 3:24 = Sola Fide. So churches that hold to Sola Scriptura believe that anyone who rejects Sola Fide is in apostasy. But just because they belong to different denominations, that doesn't mean that they consider the others to be apostate.
The Bible is applicable to all areas of life. All. Even when it's not specific (for example, pedophiles are not mentioned) general principles apply. You know this. Most protestant churches do not have detailed positions on issues like you mention (in vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, and nuclear weapons). You may find this troubling. Considering the real voting patterns and lifestyles of Catholics, you may wish to pause for a second. Liberal protestantism avoids the Bible but pushes specific positions on "hot button" issues like those you mention. Churches that hold to Sola Scriptura have faith that genuine regeneration and familiarity with God's Word produce a renewing of the mind per Rom 12:2. We don't ape a position because we're told to, we obey the Lord as a reaction to His love and our beliefs are very different from the World. That is why I've mentioned political matters (such as the degeneracy of nations) to you: you may even recall my saying that while Catholics are welcome on the Supreme Court, there are no Bible-believing Christians. The Democrats automatically vote against any Bible thumpers. So again, our unity is much greater than it may appear to as statistician, and the World recognizes this.
On this web page Ryan provides a more detailed description of Sola Scriptura.
Frisbee| 2.11.11 @ 10:18PM
Hi Evanston2: whoa - that's a long post. I'm glad you like my answer.
I see your difficulty with O'Conner's attitude, and I think she would agree if you put it that way, that the eucharist could have been just like other blessings etc.
The Catholic Church does not claim to have found the New Testament and started to interpret it. We didn't "get" the Eucharist from the bible. We claim to have gotten it from Christ, and to have mentioned that fact in certain books which eventually became the bible.
With regard to O'Conner's statement, Catholics have the opposite problem. If it's not really Jesus, then we're all bread-olatrists, and "to hell with us". I'm just trying to say, it is very important to know the truth of the matter.
Moving forward, are you aware that the Church's principle was never "sola scriptura" but instead "scripture, tradition, and magisterium"? Those things exist in protestantism too, although they tend to deny it (vigorously).
You'll find a good back and forth on this topic at First Things magazine, here:
http://www.firstthings.com/ont.....ells-me-so
Evanston2| 2.12.11 @ 12:27AM
Nick, Thank you for your tact, but I understand "The Church's" position: that it created the Bible by deciding which books to recognize as canon, which are deuterocanonical, etc. This is, in fact, an argument strongly related to the debate over the magisterium and a big reason why your triad is rejected by most Protestants. Conversely, you will find that former Anglicans/Episcopalians you welcome substitute "reason" for "magisterium" but share scripture and tradition as the other 2 principles. And what did they do with their tradition and reason? Nullify scripture. Finally, it's O'Connor with an "o" (not an "e") at the end. For me it doesn't matter, but she has many fans within Romanism so that may be helpful.
Frisbee| 2.14.11 @ 10:23PM
Evanston2: are you replying to Nick or to me (Frisbee)?
Jesus created a magisterium on earth (the apostles). This magisterium created successors such as Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Matthias.
I never heard about the Anglicans replacing magisterium with "reason". At any rate, even protestants have their various magisteria (made up of human beings), so I'm not sure why such a strong attempt is made to deny this "triad".
Evanston2| 2.16.11 @ 1:13AM
Frisbee, I was replying to Nick (see the greeting). My comment regarding Anglicanism was a passing observation. Mostly a reach-back to a previous dialog with Nick on AmSpec regarding Anglicans converting to Romanism.
You can research for yourself, my exposure to Anglicanism is quite limited, but I believe the triad is (keeping it simple) a big deal to them. I believe I've also seen it referred to as a 3-legged stool. Like I said, they used 2 legs (at least in America with the Episcopal church) to nullify Scripture.
Churches that hold to Sola Scriptura should not have that problem, but I believe recent history shows that a "magisteria" that is removed from accountability due to denominationalism (particularly with Anglicanism, but also Presbyterianism and Lutheranism) can hijack the church. Of course, this kills the church as we have seen with ECUSA, PCUSA, and ELCA. The "Mainline" have become "sideline" and soon will become "deadline" (though they are already dead, spiritually). The laymen largely know their Scripture and reject the counterfeit pushed by the magisterium (whether it be in the name of Reason or Tradition or whatever). I prefer independent, local churches because you can challenge them when they back off even slightly regarding Sola Scriptura and these are not distant figures who ignore dusty doctrine on shelves: you know the pastors and elders, their families, etc. So hijacking assets and betraying the Word isn't easy.
This is a roundabout way of saying that I wouldn't apply the word magisterium within non-denominational protestantism. You can if you wish, no big deal, I just don't see these folks as being an institution in any real sense. It's sort of a dumbass, simple statement but I'll say it anyway: they either serve the Lord or they don't. The sons of Aaron appeared to be part of the magisterium and that didn't work, nor did it for the sons of Eli, or those that opposed Jeremiah, etc. Disputes alluded to in the Pauline letters, for example, lead me to believe that laying on of hands wasn't even efficacious in the time of the Apostles. Yes, I understand it's an outward sign, etc. and actually I've always seen it done within protestantism, so I don't believe anyone quibbles with the ceremonial laying on of hands. Nonetheless, I don't put much stock in it. We are "fruit testers" until such time as we will know fully, even as we have been fully known (1 Cor 13:12).
Nick| 2.17.11 @ 1:34AM
Evanston2,
You may have greeted me, but, your response was clearly to what Frisbee had written.
This is an example of why it is sometimes hard to understand exactly what you are trying to say.
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 8:10PM
Only the true magisterium, united around Peter, has the assurance of continued infallibility.
Evanston2| 2.20.11 @ 7:06PM
Frisbee, Here is your assurance: since the true magisterium is infallible, we therefore have confidence that they are infallible. After all, they infallibly told us that they are infallible...right?
Or is this a Luke 11:52 situation? "Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were entering.”
Just as in Luke 10:38-42, our Lord commends Mary (over Martha) for choosing "the good portion, which will not be taken away from her." What is that portion? Learning directly from Him.
Just as in Luke 11:31, where our Lord praises the Queen of the South "for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here."
Know the Word to obey our Lord and you will easily spot counterfeits. Or conversely, trust in men and what they say because of their lineage. Again, the Jews did so and crucified Christ (with the help of the secular Romans who chose worldly "peace" over justice). The spiritual war is fought with the Word, as our Lord exemplified it by quoting the OT throughout His life. As the apostles all modeled it for us.
They did not preach salvation through Purgatory. They did not preach Mary. They did not preach ceremonies as cleansing. They preached honest evaluation of our lives -- how we actually live them -- that we are all sinners, and that we will be accountable regarding whether we look to Christ's death on the cross alone for salvation. Choose your "assurance" carefully.
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 8:39PM
Evanston2 mocks: "After all, they infallibly told us that they are infallible...right?"
Actually, that would also be your argument about sola scriptura. Except that scripture doesn't indicate sola scriptura, so it's a contradiction.
But if the magisterium says it's infallible, that may be circular, but at least it's not contradictory.
Summary:
"Sola scriptura" = contradiction
"Magisterium infallible" = not a contradiction.
Frisbee| 2.22.11 @ 9:17PM
Evanston2 wrote: "They did not preach salvation through Purgatory."
St Paul did.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:10PM
Unlike You Larry, I know the difference between mortal sin and excommunication.
Before You run your uneducated mouth act like A Real Catholic and learn The Tenets of The Catholic Religion.
Shove Off Buffoon.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 9:16PM
Clint: don't imperil your own salvation by uncharitable utterances.
"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." Matthew 5:22
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 12:05AM
Yep, Clint sure loves his religion. At least he spells "Tenets" correctly. So I'll give him a smiley face, even if he doesn't want it. : )
Frisbee| 2.14.11 @ 10:25PM
It's easy to fall into the "sword waving" mode that Peter resorted to in Gethsemane. On this side of the grave, like Peter, we can all still repent.
DaveS| 2.3.11 @ 6:38PM
The whole matter in Phoenix is about outing the feminist religious women, their orders, their supporters and their fellow travelers in opposition to Church authority. These dames try to run their own shadow church with a duped following.
Kingofthenet| 2.3.11 @ 7:12PM
11-week-old baby had been aborted
CALL THE POLICE, A MURDER HAS OCCURRED!
OR perhaps you mean FETUS?
Look out for the Big bad Atheists we are going to take away your FAITH
Nick| 2.3.11 @ 8:07PM
Kook of the Net,
FETUS is Latin for unborn baby.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:42PM
Actually, a death certificate is required by law at 20 weeks gestation. I know because we buried our little boy in 2005.
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 7:39AM
Frisbee,
My sincere condolences on your family's loss.
I will ask your Little Saint to pray for me, and our country. If you don't mind?
God Bless!
Felix| 2.3.11 @ 7:24PM
When the NY Times et al spew hatred for the Catholic Church one can be sure that this hatred is intended for all who consider themselves Christian. The RCC is just the biggest target. However, it goes even deeper than that. Statists hate anyone who believes in objective truth. To them truth is relative. Truth becomes whatever they can rationalize. The statist religion is made up of believers in their own "correct" view of reality.
Vern Crisler | 2.3.11 @ 8:29PM
Right, that's why true Protestants will support Roman Catholics when they are attacked by liberal media. We know such attacks are meant for us too.
Ryan| 2.4.11 @ 8:46AM
True enough. As much as I disagree with Catholic structure and theology, I do admit that the Pope is more or less the Christian representative to the world, and I have a vested interest in a good man being there.
Evanston2| 2.4.11 @ 1:01PM
Vern & Ryan, We may agree often with Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. too. But since Rome (in the person of the Pope, ex cathedra) claims to be able to draft holy writ to this day there is a reason it is a special target. Any Christian dependent on the Bible cannot be moved: Rome potentially can. It could conceivably change its position on women priests, celibacy, homosexuality, purgatory, etc. and that's why it is pressured by its own liberal members and outsiders as well. In my lifetime many changes were ushered in by Vatican II, devotion to Mary has continued its expansion, and Rome has seemed to change its position regarding Islam and cultural matters. All of these involve a labyrinth of statements, interpretations, supposed clarification, more interpretations, etc. but the bottom line is the impression that Rome is a political animal that can be moved. For example, why do homos picket Catholic churches? Could it be that the picketers often "socialize" with the priests from those very same churches? The tipping point for change in its positions, on matters both trivial and salvific, may be much closer than most here believe. When you claim to speak for God (yes -- ex cathedra -- I get it) and "hold the keys" then you've got a lot of leeway. The bottom line is we should defend Rome when it conforms with the Word, not when it over-reaches or distorts.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:35PM
Evanston2,
Name one doctrine on faith and morals that the Catholic Church has ever "changed position" on?
The celibate, i.e. non-married, priesthood has changed over the past two thousand years. There are married priests today, who are Protestant converts. This is not a doctrine. It was just decided that a married priest had too much to deal with when it came to his flock and his family. The Church was given the power "to bind and to loose" by Christ Himself.
As far as women priests, homosexuality, and Purgatory go, those doctrines are not going to change.
And, as I showed you in another thread, homos are not a problem particular to the Catholic Church.
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 1:28AM
Nick, You ask about a change regarding "Faith and morals." Ex cathedra, Vatican I, very nice. It anathematizes me but somehow Vatican II let me off the hook in the 1960s. For starters, was that a reversal of an infallible edict? I'll just list a few things which come to mind, leaving it to you (as I must) to decide whether these matters relate to "faith" (which generally is any teaching, though blasphemy can be limited to the Gospel and the person of God) and morals as they are generally understood...or whether you will hide behind legalism. For starters, indulgences still exist. They aren't sold any more, but Rome still reserves the right to bend its own rules. Limbo seems to have been downgraded. Mary accumulates ever-increasing supernatural characteristics to validate her veneration (Immaculate Conception and Assumption, role as Intercessor). Are not the pronouncements about Mary infallible, ex cathedra? Only God is infallible, but I digress. To claim that a pronouncement is infallible is to add to the canon, Catholics treat it as such and it's dishonest to say otherwise (as Frisbee does). Let's continue. Some (not all, but some) Protestant rites are now recognized. Is that a change in faith? And all this supplied by the abuse of Matt 18:18. The way Rome prefers it, this text (an amplification of Matt 16:19 and synoptic texts) gives "the Church" extremely broad leeway to add to God's law. Too bad our Lord told us what He meant: church discipline. That is, the authority and process to be followed. But "the Church" ignores the clear meaning of Matt 18:15-17. Absolutely, much better to cut out a snippet in v. 18 and ignore the context. Further ignore Peter's reaction in Matt 18:21, where he asks about forgiveness (that is, loosing those who offend) or our Lord's description of proper forgiveness and judgement in 23-35. What, is Rome the only entity that can "gather in my name?" Doesn't seem to fit: when 2 or 3 can "gather in my name" as witnesses this fits as an outline for how the local church, even in its smallest conceivable form (v. 19-20) is authorized to conduct church discipline with witnesses, etc. Doesn't it? But drop Rome's broad-based interpretation of this passage and it's claimed linkage to Peter (nowhere justified in Scripture) and Rome loses its luster. The special status of ex cathedra pronouncements, which Vatican I alludes to by invoking Matt 18:18, is lost completely. Regarding homos, I've mentioned them (and pedophiles) because these are extreme examples of sin which have been covered up (as you said elsewhere) by ecclesial "due process." This is the same reason I've mentioned nations that have been dominated by your religion for hundreds of years, and produced moral and economic degeneracy. Our Lord tells us to judge a tree by the fruit produced. You tell me that others have sinned, thanks, but I know this from my own sin nature, life's experience, and above all Scripture. The point is the toleration of evil. Abundant homosexuality, but it's OK because as a matter of "faith and morals" they're not officially approved (yet). As you say, you take pronouncements from these men in robes as "binding." Endless myth-making, adding burdens Christ did not, calling attention to all sorts of personages and institutions and writings (like the Didache -- I already refer to it in reference to abortion, thanks, but it's not even deuterocanonical), keeping the Bible out of common tongues (why don't you try some Latin on me, I only took 4 years?), instead prescribing all sorts of motions to go through and a famine of The Word. What is the foundation of your faith? Does 2 Cor 13:5 apply? Does 2 Cor 13:1-4 echo Christ's pronouncements regarding church discipline, or does it authorize your teachers to be those from 2 Cor 12:21 and let them "loose" or "bind" by talking about holiness but actually tolerating evil? Wow. This is "the Church."
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 7:40PM
Evanston2,
Infallibility is a complex subject. There have only been 2 explicit ex cathedra declarations: The Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. The Magesterium, the teaching office of the Church, is also infallible.
Here are two links that explain it in-depth:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IIIB
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM
And, again, all denominations (even non-denominational churches,) have a problem with homo and pedophile sexual abuse. In fact, every institution that deals with children has this problem.
The Catholic Church is not in the lead when it comes to the numbers of homo ministers. Nor, is it in the forefront of institutions that were plagued with officers who tried to hide the problem.
You really need to educate yourself on this matter, lest you think your church is excempt from such problems.
God Bless!
Evanston2| 2.10.11 @ 3:20AM
Nick, You're right, ex cathedra is a complex matter. Starting with the fact that the Vatican has never provided a complete list of papal statements considered to be infallible. For example, you didn't mention JPII's Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Though not ex cathedra it's supposedly infallible. But what you said is enough. The doctrines of Mary are new canon. Regarding homos, the education you need is that real churches follow Biblical standards and church discipline to get rid of them while Rome doesn't. Again, it's just an example, but when you assert that other churches or "institutions" are worse, it does nothing to support your position that Rome = "the Church." Rome is, by your own comparison, just "a church" and its tolerance of sin in its own clergy makes me wonder why you look to these men as your spiritual leaders.
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 8:00PM
Evanston2,
Oh, yeah, I'm still waiting for just one doctrine that the Catholic Church has "changed position" on?
Evanston2| 2.10.11 @ 4:03AM
Nick, Regarding changing its doctrine, I'll repeat in bullet form so perhaps you'll get it:
- Vatican I anathematized me, infallibly. Why? Because I don't recognize its infallibility! "So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema." But Vatican II declared Protestants to be "Separated brethren." Here are some texts: http://www.northforest.org/Chu.....canII.html
So an infallible edict declares me to be anathema, then its successor says that I may be a brother. Is this a change? Probably not. After all, there is no such thing as any real clarity within Romanism. My whole point about Rome being movable is that you're only 1 edict away from getting a new interpretation, etc.
- Indulgences still exist. Any time one is granted, Rome reverses itself on temporal punishment for sin.
- Limbo, which in my youth was a normal teaching of "the Church" (due to the logic of infant baptism applied as far back as Clement of Alexandria and Augustine) is now abandoned. The 1992 Catechism and Pope Benedict in 2007 diminished it to a "possible theological hypothesis." Change? Yes. 180 degree reversal? No.
- Mary accumulates ever-increasing supernatural characteristics to validate her veneration (Immaculate Conception and Assumption, role as Intercessor). You agree that these are ex cathedra. Very good. Change? Yes, from the Bible's teaching that all but Christ were sinners: Mary is now exempted. Yes, from the Bible's teaching that only Christ and the Holy Spirit may be Intercessors. Change? Perhaps not, perhaps according to your tradition Rome has invalidated God's Word all along.
- Some Protestant rites are now recognized by Rome. You are the one (using the schema introduced by Vatican I) to describe ex cathedra statements as those regarding "faith or morals." Are Protestant rites, once anethema, now recognized, a matter of faith? Is this a change, a reversal? Evidently not. Because faith, to you, is a plastic notion. As is the ability to quote my prior posts here. To wit:
"Any Christian dependent on the Bible cannot be moved: Rome potentially can."
As you say, "God bless!"
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:48PM
Thanks Vern and Ryan and Evanston2 for your standing with the RCC when you can.
Evanston2 wrote :"Rome is a political animal that can be moved."
Actually Rome is a city in Italy. It happens to also be the location of the See of Peter, the Rock (Kepha if you prefer) on which Christ founded his Church.
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 1:57AM
Frisbee, The Bishop of Rome, and the Holy See (equivalent to a sovereign state) are located in Rome. And, as you inform me, these are both in Italy. Thank you for the info.
This reminds me of a humorous story. Peter died and some gents claimed that they spoke for him. This was supported by a political animal known as the Roman emperor. As the Bishop of Rome asserted that speaking for a dead guy made him extra special, the emperor agreed. Wherever the armies went, they absorbed pagan practices by changing the names of native gods into "saints" and particularly promoted Mary as the "mother of God" to replace Diana and the like. And so people like you put your faith in the pronouncements of men instead of the Word of God. And after the Roman emperor declined, the Bible was quoted by Rome to substantiate its authority. A one-liner about Simon being nicknamed Peter by our Lord because what he said was truth, though a few lines later Peter says something Satanic. But let's not go there. Instead, you may now discard your Bible (banned unless it was written in Latin, which curiously originated in Rome...and you'd be burned for having one in a language you could understand) or stuff it in a dark corner of your house, only to be used to record marriages, deaths, and such. Because all you need to know will be told to you by the men in robes. You can be saved by doing the things that they tell you to do.
Had enough of the sarcasm? Or is it accurate? No, it's not entirely fair, but since I quite obviously do not see your religion as being "catholic" (that is, universal) then I do not feel constrained to use your terminology. The center of your worship is in Rome. Whether the center of your heart is Christ's is for you to know, not me.
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 6:31PM
Evanston2,
You seem to have soaked up every piece of anti-Catholic propaganda to come out of Elizabethan England. Congratulations.
So much for not following the teachings of men, huh?
Evanston2| 2.10.11 @ 4:07AM
Nick, Let's try your challenge: identify 1 falsehood in what I outlined in my response to Frisbee. Now, in fairness, my language was harsh because my pal Frisbee decided to educate me about the location of Rome. So I'm asking for a factual critique, not one regarding my "tone."
Evanston2| 2.11.11 @ 5:43AM
Nick, I've learned to repeat things to you and hope that you'll actually "get it." Frisbee objected (like you have in the past) to me using the term "Rome." He got sarcastic and told me that it's in Italy. My reply highlighted the obvious: that Rome is the central location of governance in the present day, and that this actually relies on the geographic location of Rome aligning with the traditional death site of Peter. All of this is factual. Further, the common name in the U.S. is "Roman Catholicism." I refuse to use the word "catholic" since I do not believe that yours is a universal church. I therefore use the word "Roman" and variants thereof despite the fact that you, Frisbee, and others find it offensive. Perhaps I should call it "The Church" as Ms. Fabrizio, you, Frisbee, and other adherents do. I plead guilty to not believing that yours is The Church. Further, since I do not share many of its beliefs, whenever I disagree I am by definition (as you say) anti-Catholic. Again, I plead guilty. So while the term Rome is a neutral and accurate term, your imposition of the title "The Church" is the one that is seriously prejudicial. Propaganda? In a prior discussion I said that my church was obviously Trinitarian and you told me that this is not an obvious matter. Well, if you have actually studied the early councils, you will find that the Trinity was totally accepted as Biblical. Differences (and heresies) were in regard to the exact description of the qualities within the Godhead. I mention this because I have not "soaked up" propaganda, nor the teachings of men. Not intentionally, that is. My interaction with you has taught me that your knowledge is superficial or worse. Regarding facts, do you deny the role of Constantine? Or that "The Church" got mixed up in State business? Or that church holidays were timed to supplant pagan holidays, but often mixed up these practices (syncretism)? Or that translation to Latin was the only approved language for what we now know as the Bible? Or even further, that until the Reformation that Rome didn't have an official Bible per se, that what you can call a Catholic Bible was published as a reaction to the Reformation? That laymen, and perhaps clergy, were (and are) not trusted to "live by every word that comes from the mouth of God" (that is, they were and are kept ignorant on purpose). That as you also have asserted here, Rome relies on Matt 16:18 in the Bible for its claim to primacy and to assert widespread tradition as authoritative? Overall, you may not like the "spin" I give to these things, and you're definitely free to say that I've left out key facts and that my conclusions have no merit. Nonetheless, if you are asserting that what I've said above is entirely fiction, well, it's time to quote some fiction from Shakespeare: "Parting is such sweet sorrow." The parting may be due to an unbridgeable chasm.
Frisbee| 2.14.11 @ 10:39PM
Sorry my remark about Rome being a city in Italy was so offensive. I hereby retract.
The fact that "Rome is a political animal" seems to me to be built into the fact that Jesus left us men in authority. St Paul and St Peter were (I suppose) political animals, yes. So what?
The emperor was a political animal too. And St Paul tells you to obey him. So, it seems to me that you don't have an excuse for not obeying the Pope. This is the folly of the cross.
Evanston2| 2.16.11 @ 1:43AM
Frisbee, Paul never tells us to obey Peter, nor his alleged successors in Rome. In fact, in Gal 2:11 we are told that Paul opposed Peter "to his face, because he stood condemned." I find no basis to believe that either was involved in what we would call "politics."
In fact, as you note, they affirm a separation of church and state. Paul's instructions in Romans 13, as well as Peter's in 1 Pet 2:13-17 are tough to deal with. Particularly since (according to tradition -- you've got me here!) both Paul and Peter obeyed this precept to their deaths. I was a Marine Corps officer in the old days and even then I would've had a hard time with these passages. Now that the U.S. is more opposed than ever to God, it's very hard to be obedient. I mostly just try to concentrate on the Lord's business, but I no longer say the pledge nor sing the national anthem. The whole concept of a state church mixes up the 2 worlds. Our Lord established the church/state divide in Matt 22:21 when He told us to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." I honestly believe that all state churches throughout history have been, at best, neutered. Europe shows it all. In light of above, I don't understand how a church/state divide then requires me to obey Rome. Rather, it indicates that Rome's insinuation into kingmaking, etc. was disobedient to God.
Nick asked me here what protestants believe about in vitro fertilization, nuclear weapons, etc. I believe Catholics know more about what to believe and very little about why. This may be unfair, so be it. As I told Nick, there's a reason Catholics can still get on the Supreme Court but evangelical protestants don't stand a chance. Simply put, we look to Scripture and cannot be moved. That was the point of my original statement here on AmSpec, seems like ages ago. People like Pelosi, the Kennedies, "Cafeteria Catholics" and priests and nuns from different orders, etc. all seem quite movable.
All this makes me miss Clint. His comments to me here on AmSpec almost always mention shotguns. I need to ask whether we're talking pump action or not...
Frisbee| 2.17.11 @ 8:25PM
Peter was timid in this case (precisely what Paul advises Timothy against). But he clearly knew the truth of all foods being clean (as we know from Acts). Don't forget that infallibility is a "negative" gift. A pope can say nothing, and be infallible, and still be a very bad pope. In this case, Peter did not speak up when he should have. He should have made an ex cathedra statement, and didn't.
Ted| 2.4.11 @ 6:41PM
1. "claims to be able to draft holy writ to this day there is a reason it is a special target"
Your understanding is incorrect. The Holy See makes no claim to be able to draft God's religious regulations at will.
2. As far as women's ordination goes, the subject is closed:
In 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, "Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4)."
3. Celibacy is a different issue because it deals with church discipline, rather than a fundamental issue of faith and/or morals. In fact, there are married priests in the Catholic Church (some are Anglican converts but most are Easteran Rite Catholic priests).
4. Interestingly enough, John Paul II (when he was a young man) took serious issue with the way Mary seemed to be portrayed in the Church. (This is also an issue for Protestants, particularly those who are considering converting to the Catholic Faith).
This changed as he became familiar with the works of both St. John of the Cross, St. Teresa of Avila, and St. Louis Grignion de Montfort (especially his work True Devotion to Mary).
Mary's fiat is the essence of Christian discipleship (Be it done to me according to Your word. Luke 1:38)
5. "The bottom line is we should defend Rome when it conforms with the Word, not when it over-reaches or distorts."
In this statement it seems you are claiming for yourself the very same authority you deny "Rome."
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 3:24AM
Ted, Good outline. Hopefully this response is...responsive: 1. A claim to speak with infallibility is a claim to speak for God. Insofar as the Pope can speak ex cathedra, Rome is adding to the canon.
2. "The matter is closed." Oh really. Trent anathematized most Protestants, then Vatican I did so (to those who do not recognize papal infallibility), but Vatican II largely reversed this. True, this is a very complex matter. But that's not unusual. In fact, Rome hides in layers of writing, interpretation, and interpretation of the interpretation on a great many issues (see response to point 5, below). And you cite the Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which is not ex cathedra, as unalterable authority regarding the ordination of women? In your answer you focus on "the Church" while your only confidence (at least at this time) can be in its fidelity to verses addressing qualifications for clergy in the Bible. Of course, Rome ignores these same Bible verses relating to its leaders (starting with Peter) being married. To wit:
3. You note, quite accurately, that priestly celibacy is a matter of church polity (not, strictly speaking, an ex cathedra matter of "faith and morals"). Still, do you consider the matter of clergy to be of secondary importance? Or that it is proper to ignore Paul's criteria for church leadership (which mentions marriage in 1 Tim 3:2 & 11) and where Paul himself reserves the right to marry in 1 Cor 9:5. Technically Rome does not violate the Word, it just ignores divine guidance regarding what type of men (healthy, grounded heterosexual) should lead.
4. I'm truly not trying to score debating points regarding Mary, but my understanding is that her fiat is still the launching point for debate. The fiat itself is not in the passive voice, it is in the imperative and some use it as a starting point for her status as co-redemptrix, Immaculately conceived, Assumed into heaven, etc. Looks like building a demigod to me, and when you consider the churches and institutions/orders named after her, that Mary holding the Christ child is supposedly the most common statuary/relief in Romanism, that all Catholics can recite the Hail Mary better than Scripture when most of it is not (and ask for her Intercession), you've got a problem in the actual practice of Roman Catholicism. JPII's upcoming sainthood will only add to this.
5. You're right. How can I know what the Bible says? Better to learn from "Rome." Start with the Catechism. Then Nick tells me to read the Didache. Augustine and the Doctor Angelicus. All the church councils and Vatican I and II. Then what recent popes have written. Then how Jesuits and followers of other Orders have interpreted all of the above. Then I should try to interpret or merge these interpretations.
Or perhaps, just perhaps, despite warnings from "good Catholics" to not have a "private interpretation" (per 2 Pet 1:20) I am supposed to "live by every word that comes from the mouth of God." To actually discuss what the Bible means with others, to meditate on it. Or should I choose Rome, which may issue some new infallible doctrine in God's name at any time? Are you offended by the word "Rome?" Why. Your leader is the Bishop of Rome. The Holy See is located in Rome. It is a sovereign state within the city limits of Rome and enjoys diplomatic immunity unlike any other church due to its roots in Rome. The authority I claim is to read the Bible. Where is Purgatory in the Bible? Where is praying to the dead (saints)? Where is use of relics? Where are pilgrimages? Where does Mary become a virgin when Christ had half brothers and sisters? Repetitive prayers? In addition to false worship practices, Rome claims the authority to keep me out of heaven ("the keys"), to withhold from me what it claims is the true bread of life (since I don't agree with its Aristotelian interpretation), etc. Rome over-reaches and distorts. I claim no extra-Biblical authority. Yet you say "in this statement" I am claiming for myself some sort of extraordinary authority. As if Christians are not supposed to hold the Bible as truth, His Word as the measure of all things. Ted, when you sell your house remember to bury a statue of St. Joseph upside down. Crucify yourself and lash yourself in homage to Christ. Put a magnet you bought in Tijuana on your refrigerator because it holds the bones of a saint. Build a grotto. I've seen all these things done in God's name by "good Catholics." Rome holds the keys, it's OK.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 9:12PM
Evanston2 wrote: "But since Rome (in the person of the Pope, ex cathedra) claims to be able to draft holy writ to this day there is a reason it is a special target."
The Church makes no such claim. It was actually the Catholic church that claimed the age of revelation was over.
What is unacceptable, Evanston2, is that Protestants seem to claim infallibility for themselves, while denying it to the church (in the Pope).
Ryan| 2.7.11 @ 8:44AM
Reformed Baptist here, and even I get how Papal infallibility works. It's usually over-simplified by Protestants who are particularly anti-Catholic.
No, the Pope really can't add to scripture - or even much to Tradition, for that matter. There has rarely - if anything outside of MAYBE Vatican II - where anything has been other than a clarification of a position spoken that a Pope has made in centuries.
Now, I do wonder if Catholics really understand how uncomfortable Protestants get with infallibility at times, though...
Ted| 2.7.11 @ 12:23PM
Ryan,
I get it... It's hard because most of us come to the table with a preconceived notion of what infallibility means. Once 0ne studies the teaching and what it actually covers, the comfort level increases dramatically.
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 4:12AM
Ryan, It's really cool that you know how infallibility works and how "anti-Catholic" types oversimplify. Without looking at any references whatsoever, just type away in your own words. Explain how a religious statement (we're not talking 2 + 2 = 4 here) can be infallible but not new truth. As you've already informed me, these statements are "rarely" anything "other than a clarification." Although, evidently, the matter clarified was previously subject to debate and important enough to require universal acceptance. So the infallible statement matters, but it really doesn't. OK, I get it. Or do I? I look forward to your un-over-simplified explanation.
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 3:55AM
Frisbee, At the risk of repeating myself, if you claim that a religious statement is infallible, then it is holy writ. To say otherwise is disingenuous. The age of revelation continues in Romanism with every new ex cathedra pronouncement. You may claim that these do not directly contradict Scripture. Super. Are you arguing that ex cathedra pronouncements reveal nothing new? You may not wish to call this "revelation" -- fine, I have no doubt that semantics and theological niceties are with you. Evidently the age of revelation as closed, but the age of new infallible directives isn't. Per 2 Tim 3:16, Bible believers take Scripture to be "god breathed." Per v. 17 we are supposed to use it for teaching, reproof, correction, training, equipping for every good work. Name 1 Protestant, please, who claims infallibility? Perhaps someone on Cable Channel 20...though I wonder if even Jim Jones ever publicly made such a claim. I sure as shooting will not apologize for Protestants referring to Scripture continuously as sheep who hear the shepherd's voice (John 10:27). And exactly how am I denying the Pope his supposed ex cathedra, infallible (but evidently not canonical) power? Answer: I am not. Since Vatican I, his predecessors have claimed this right and have not been inhibited by my lack of cooperation. Perhaps, contrary to what you say, if I don't view ex cathedra statements as equivalent to Scripture or as new revelation, that I am "denying" infallibility to the pope? Yes, indeed, how "unacceptable."
Kingofthenet| 2.3.11 @ 7:35PM
The Author is DEFINITELY a 'Catholic Utilizing Neoclassical Theology' ...That's too long perhaps an Acronym?
Akaky| 2.3.11 @ 7:46PM
King, if you're going to be insulting put some thought into it. Scrawling dirty words on the side of the church is something a cheeky sixth grader in a parochial school would do thinking it would shock the nuns. Try again.
Paul| 2.3.11 @ 8:15PM
Actually, given the general tenor of the English-speaking internet, I am inclined to believe that he actually is its King.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:51PM
Actually, I think I spot a journalist from the NCR.
Clint| 2.3.11 @ 11:21PM
The Kingofhens is Definitely A Troll.
Get Lost Twerp.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 12:59PM
Lest we forget, the nun in question and her co-workers at St. Joseph's approved the abortion because the mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension and would have died (along with an inviable fetus the size of a penny). Lest we forget, had the Catholic tenets been followed, her four children would be left without a mother. So yes, lest we forget, the condemnations of the Catholic church in this case are monstrous, callous, cruel, and hopelessly out of touch with reality.
I'd be remiss to say I don't expect that from an organization that refuses to condone contraception in Africa, where mothers and children die young from AIDS as a result.
I'd be remiss to say that I don't expect that from an organization that excommunicates a 9 year old girl for getting an abortion after she was raped by her stepdad.
I'd be remiss to say I don't expect this kind of behavior from the faith that failed to excommunicate any of the evil men in the Nazi regime save for Joseph Goebbles, who was excommunicated for marrying a protestant.
Work of the "Lord" indeed.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 1:21PM
Then don't be a Catholic.
Man, that was easy!
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:22PM
Typical faithless arguments. "Do evil that good may come from it." Save (and the planet) moms by killing children. Sorry - not buying your tough case. These were precisely Hitler's arguments: destroy the weak and useless to gain the upper hand for the ubermen and the deserving.
Trust in God - not in your ability to kill.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 1:26PM
I'd like to hear you explain "trust in God" to a 9 year old girl whose stepdad has sexually abused her for three years. Would you like to explain to me what you'd tell her mother to justify letting her twins come to term, killing her and the fetuses in the process?
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:47PM
I'm not explaining trust in God to a 9 year old girl. I'm explaining it to you.
I'm all for punishing rapists and abusers and incestors. I would happily make abortion illegal, if we had to also advocate the death penalty for abusers.
Those twins you refer to... are you.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 2:01PM
No John, you are the demons.
Imagine if your own daughter was raped, tragically impregnated, that little ray of sunshine you adore now a frightened and perpetually scarred victim. Imagine for a moment the kind of unbridled agony you would feel.
And you're telling me that you would let your daughter die, forever lost to you and everyone you love, because you refuse to let her get an abortion for the fetus that will never come to term?
If so, then you Sir are a monster.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 2:17PM
Who is John? Letting people die is not the same as killing. You let people die every day. There - somebody just died.
I refuse to kill my grandchild to save my daughter. That does not make me a monster (if you are talking to me).
Obama has stated he would kill his grandchildren if they were a "burden" on his daughters. Now there's a mondster for you.
If you are angry, take it out on the abuser, not on the unborn child.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 2:37PM
I am not interested in Obama or anyone else for the purpose of this discussion, which is incidentally a strawman.
No, rather, I am very interested in what precisely possesses anybody to so callously preach that a mother should let her baby daughter (for who isn't at age 9?) die because her stepdad made her pregnant. Those aren't grandchildren, they were never going to be grandchildren. They were penny-sized fetuses that were never - ever - able to gestate in a 9 year old girl's body.
But lest we forget, the all-knowing Vatican and not least you yourself in your infinite Biblical wisdom have decided that it is better that the rape victim die.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 3:25PM
Anonymous: I love you. Seriously, maybe you need some medications, or maybe an exorcism by that priest on which the movie "The Rite" was based on.
How can a 9-year old girl conceive? If she can conceive, then why can she not carry the baby? Ridiculous situations make for ridiculous law.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:18PM
You should address those concerns to Google and research what happened to that 9 year old girl who was sexually abused for three years that should have been a happy childhood.
As for "how" biologically, there's a little thing called puberty that kicks in, and sometimes it kicks in early.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 5:56PM
Was she 9 for three years?
Will an abortion make the 3 years go away? No, it will make it worse.
Why don't you research the case of that nun in Bosnia that was raped by soldiers and decided to keep the baby?
All these perps need to be punished, and abortion is just another layer of crime.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 6:10PM
What works for one person won't work for everybody. The girl in question was raped from age 6 to age 9... not sure why you would assume otherwise. 9 was when she got pregnant, and her stepdad ran because he knew the game was up.
Her abortion saved her life. That's not a choice of "keeping" her "baby." The two fetuses in her womb would have killed her, there is no physical way for a 9 year old girl to deliver twins.
Perhaps you just need to do what I did and read what happened. Maybe then the idea that the fetuses would never have been born anyway will sink in.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 9:07PM
Maybe the idea will sink in that new human beings exist at conception, not at birth.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 9:29PM
If your argument is that a zygote is also a person, then I'll point you back to my earlier comment about in vitro fertilization. About a dozen blastocysts are thrown out as they are either not ideal or simply didn't attach to the womb.
By that logic, there are
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 9:32PM
over a dozen murders per one birth. Like the embryo in this case, those blastocysts cannot develop further, they are simply thrown out.
The suction aspiration in this case was not so much removing an embryo as a malignant tumor. It was never going to be a child.
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 7:51AM
Anonymous,
You have a malignant tumor.
It's called bleeding heart liberalism.
Anonymous| 2.5.11 @ 4:24PM
Is that what they call a brain these days?
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 7:47PM
See my comment, below.
Alyosha| 2.4.11 @ 1:48PM
My friend, you have unfortunately given away your anonymity. You're obviously my brother, Ivan Fyodorovitch Karamazov.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 1:56PM
"Why must children be the manure for someone else's salvation?"
- Vanya
=)
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 4:22PM
If a woman is pregnant and her life is as risk due to childbearing then there are two options.
One active, one passive.
Active- CHOOSE to take an ACTIVE ROLE in killnig the unborn to save the mother.
Passive- ALLOW for nature to run it's course in which people die ever day for a multitude of reasons. The circumstances may very well be troubling, disgusting, and downright repulsive... but they are seperate from the actual events of abortion and birth. It is not evil that people die.
The active role requires that someone choose to take another person's life without just cause. That person has done nothing to deserve to be killed. The passive role means that no one is killing anyone.
As for AIDS in Africa... they are not dying from failing to use protection. They are dying from partaking in a dangerous activity that spreads AIDS. It's not the failure to use a condom... it's the action of having sex in the first place, that is spreading the disease. Using a condom or not is simply a "way" to have sex. The sex itself is the cause of the spread of the disease. Abstainance is the only 100% means of preventing STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I fail to see how that's a bad policy to stand behind... a proven 100% record that has and never will fail... or even a 99.99999% success rate. I'll take 100% every time. (And don't try to point out figures that show that abstainance teaching does worse than safe sex teaching... those may be true statements... but if you look at the practitioners of each method you'll see that only one works ever time).
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 4:47PM
YeloStalyn: there can be more "active" choices than killing, can't there? I think a simple example would be placeta-previa, where normal birth is impossible and a c-section is required (when the baby is due).
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 4:54PM
There certainly are more options, but in reference to the dispute at hand... these are the two options that are apparently being debated. To save a life by killing, or to allow a death by not killing... and which is moral.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 6:00PM
All of our deaths will be allowed, I assure you. It is impossible to have these discussions without being specific about what we are talking about. There are principles such as double effect involved. (For texts on moral theology, I have never found a better one than Germaine Grisez').
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:23PM
I suggest next time a family member is terminally ill, you recommend letting "nature run its course" instead of seeking professional medical care.
You know, the kind that we hire very well-educated and talented people for and trust them to perform.
Your AIDS argument is ridiculous. People have been having sex forever, and no amount of your (or the Vatican's) preaching will ever change that. You can either give them the means and education to do it safely, or you can do what the Catholic church did and preach against using protection, thereby helping perpetuate the AIDS pandemic. Real responsible.
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 5:33PM
You're right... no amount of preaching will ever stop people from sinning and suffering the consequences of their bad choices. I simply stated and absolute fact. It is not the non-use of a condom that spread AIDS. It was the act of irresponsible sex outside of a monogamous relationship. My wife and I will never, under any circumstaces, not even if the sun moon and stars all alined against us, get an STD for not using a condom so long as we are pure in our sex life. Period. End of story. Close the book. You can want to blame someone else who's not even in the same continent as the two people having promiscuous sex all you want... but it's a hard argument to make rationlly (although, I do understand how many make it emotionally... and that is your problem... trusting your emotions rather than your reason).
As for the "means and education to do it safely" remark... that is EXACTLY what abstainance is. There is ZERO other means to have as safe of a sex life as that of a pure one. You can not argue against that fact. If you do not have sex with someone.... you will not sire an unwanted child or contract an STD. You simply can't do it. It's not possible. You're dealing with emotional (and understandable) but irrational and illogical arguments.
And your example of letting "nature run it's course" in the case of someone who is terminally ill is apples and oranges. I didn't have to kill someone in order to attempt to cure my grandmother from her terminal illness. If that were the option we had at hand, I can tell you with certainty that she would have chosen to die rather than put blood on her families hands. But, either way, that's still not a comparable argument.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:41PM
So only people who are lucky enough to be born outside of Africa deserve to know how to use condoms and have access to them? You say that knowing AIDS is a serious problem in Africa that affects not only the persons having sex, but their children as well?
Gee, aren't you just a font of love and good will?
How about instead of preaching about abstinence, which will never - ever - work, we instead do something that has measurable results: Teach people how to have sex responsibly. The average age girls lose their virginity in the US is around 15-16. Usually not to their spouse.
But I guess you're all about that double standard.
Finally, on "apples and oranges:" You're perpetrating a false dichotomy, the "life" you're trying to "save" was already doomed. The fetus in question would have killed her long before ever being born. It would be sad if your sanctimonious preaching got in the way of saving a dying woman's life.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 6:02PM
Anonymous wrote: "the "life" you're trying to "save" was already doomed."
We're all "doomed" to death, Anonymous. That doesn't give you the right to kill us.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 6:14PM
That's a very convenient excuse to throw out from someone who is in no danger of dying.
And moreover, the child would never have been born anyway. Not sure why you're so eager to criticize someone who made a very reasonable choice.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 1:25PM
When people die as a result it is irresponsible not to care.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 2:22PM
I care, but I won't kill.
When (innocent) people die as a direct result of trying to kill them, that's not caring, that's murder.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 2:39PM
And obviously, the "life" of an 11 week old fetus with no neural activity that was never going to be born in the first place is much more important than the life of the mother whose life is at stake. I can see precisely how much you care about innocent people.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 2:59PM
Love them both. Don't play God.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 3:23PM
I'm sure that "love" will be a great substitute for the 50 or so years she has left to live, and I'm sure that fetus was just so grateful to never be born anyway.
Seriously, you disgust me equally as much as anyone who refuses to proactively protect the ones they love.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 3:32PM
I pro-actively protect my family more than anyone I know.
50 or so years that she has left to live? Why, is she planning to die at 59?
Anonymous, if you have been party to some crime against humanity like abortion, then ask Jesus right now for forgiveness and healing. The most powerful pro-life voices today are the multitudes of post abortive women. Jesus loves you and he will still love you in 59 years and in 59,000 years.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:06PM
Jesus isn't going to save your family's life, you are.
Jesus isn't going to save a girl who will die without a necessary medical treatment.
So, in my personal opinion, Jesus can take a short drop from a long fall and leave the saving to medical professionals. I would be proud to be part of any medical procedure that saves a woman's life.
YeloStalyn| 2.4.11 @ 5:40PM
Jesus didn't come to save your life... He came to save your soul.
Big difference and the reason so many have trouble bringing faith and the world they see in front of them in line with eachother.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:43PM
Show me a soul and I'll give serious consideration to that possibility.
If not, then boy do I have a bridge to sell to you.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 6:04PM
Show me a life, and I'll show you a soul. It's right there where the life is.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 6:23PM
So trees have souls? Animals? If "life" is the minimum bar, then there are a lot of "souls" in my digestion system.
No, life is a complicated chemical and biological process where organisms replicate and create offspring that carry the parents' genetic information. There is no need to attach "souls" at any point.
Still waiting on souls, but let me save you some time: There is no empirical way yet that shows an entity separate from the mind. If you think your mind and soul are separate consciousnesses, I suggest you beat yourself in the head with a hammer and see what consciousness you retain and what you don't.
Frisbee| 2.7.11 @ 7:58PM
"organisms replicate and create offspring that carry the parents' genetic information."
Thanks for that. You just lost your argument. A fetus is genetically complete.
Evanston2| 2.9.11 @ 4:21AM
Anonymous, With respect, you're claiming omniscience. You know what Jesus, or The Force, or Whatever may or may not do? We're all finite, we do our best, but we must make choices with our limited abilities and resources. You choose to kill an unborn child for the benefit of a 9 year old. Fine. Please don't force others to pay for your preference or for others to support it in any way. The sad truth is that killing is a slippery slope. Like that fake god Jesus said, "Live by the sword, die by the sword."
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 3:08PM
There is no medical reason to ever have an abortion. In fact, the opposite is true. Abortion puts a women's health and life in danger.
Just read about the monster, abortionist Kermit Gosnell, and his abortion mill of horror in Philly.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 3:20PM
You can obviously read, so let's try this again:
The fetus was unviable. It was never going to be born. In fact, keeping it would kill them both.
If a small complication like "dying" isn't enough of a "medical reason" to get an abortion, then you should probably look into why we have a medical infrastructure at all.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 3:26PM
Anonymous: What are you talking about? Are you talking about a tubal pregnancy?
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:11PM
If you mean in vitro fertilization, then no. I mean the woman in question was diagnosed with pulmonary hypertension and would have died, - her pregnancy never completed or possible to complete - if she hadn't had an abortion. It's cut and dry. No child, no labor, no third trimester, just one dead mother.
As for in vitro fertilization, I'm surprised it isn't more demonized. It involves throwing out at least a dozen blastocysts (which cannot develop further outside the womb, like stem cells) for the sake of causing one to become viable.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 6:11PM
No, a tubal pregnancy is one where the implantation took place in the fallopian tube. In that case, the tube can be removed even though the baby will die as a result. But the death of the baby must not be willed, and I wish that there were efforts being made to facilitate re-implantation.
Pulmonary hypertension? That's it? That's barely even serious. A little extra bed rest. I bet a good pregnancy could even cure it. Doctors lie a lot these days. They constantly overestimate the risk of conditions and underestimate the risks of their interventions.
Holly Paterson... now there's a dead girl, from a pharmaceutical abortion. What was the name of the lady that Gosnell killed?
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 6:17PM
Well, what a shame that the doctors at St. Joseph's hospital, medical professionals with degrees from accredited universities, didn't ask Frisbee the Internet doctor!
"Sure Miss, you'll be fine! Just rest a little."
Geez, and here I was foolishly going on the word of licensed medical professionals who have actually examined the girl and diagnosed her condition based on empirical methods that reliably predict medical conditions!
What a fool I was!
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 4:39PM
Anonymous,
You obviously don't know what you are talking about. You write about twins coming "to term," then you claim they weren't viable. Please be more precise.
I still stand by my statement. I've heard many Ob/Gyns state that there is NEVER a medical reason that requires the deliberate killing of the unborn baby (fetus in Latin) to save the mother's life.
Got a problem with that? Take it up with the doctors.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 5:08PM
The same doctors who diagnosed this lady with pulmonary hypertension and decided she would die without proper medical attention that sadly involved terminating an 11 week fetus?
And if you're curious about the case of the 9 year old girl and her abortion, then Google it. The callousness and ridiculousness of the Catholic church in that case is beyond compare.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 6:14PM
Anonymous,
Officials in the local diocese said the girl could've given birth to the babies through a Caesarean section. I'll believe the Catholic Church over a bunch of pro-abort "doctors" any day of the week.
The Church's position is clear: You try to save the life of both the mother and the babies. Instead, two little babies were killed.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 6:20PM
Who are you even talking about now? Two babies? You mean the pregnant 9 year old?
Okay... so let me get this straight. You trust "officials" in the local diocese over medical professionals with experience, education, and equipment specifically designed to correctly diagnose patients.
Gee, I think I see now why you don't have much experience dealing with medical professionals.
Nick| 2.4.11 @ 7:09PM
Anonymous,
Is English your second language?
Geez! The 9 year old girl was pregnant with....TWINS!!!!
That means two babies. Get it?
And, I'd hate to burst your bubble, but there are many medical professionals who just happen to be Catholic, and follow the Church's teaching on the sanctity of human life.
So, yes, to state it again, I will stand by the diagnosis of the Catholic Church's officials, rather than the pro-abort doctors, who love to find any reason to kill the unborn baby (fetus in Latin.)
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 8:04PM
Your agitation is rather futile. Learn to control your emotions.
Now, did those "medical professionals" actually examine her? When? If it was after the abortion they were a little late to be pointing fingers.
And, incidentally, since Portuguese is obviously not a language you speak: Brazilian law states that abortions are only allowed in the case of rape, or to save the life of the mother. Guess which of the two the doctors, the medical professionals who examined her, used as their justification?
That's right. Her life was in danger.
Finally, your fetus/baby nonsense is drivel. Fetus is a medical term used to describe the period between embryo and infant. Usually after two months.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 9:02PM
The child in the womb has as much a right to life as you do, whatever names you use.
Anonymous| 2.4.11 @ 9:13PM
It never had a chance. That's not a right to life, it's a right to die futilely.
You're free to it, but between saving the mother and saving no one the choice is obvious and ethical.
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 8:16AM
Anonymous,
You keep using the same false straw man argument: This was a choice between saving the 9 year old mother; or letting her and her two babies die, if the pregancy was allowed to continue. (How did forget about the twins so soon after writing it?)
This is not true. Your only basis for this false assumption is your reliance on the word of the pro-abort doctors who pushed for this atrocity to occur. I will assume from this falsely placed trust, that you are not a doctor. Neither am I.
I could give you dozens, if not hundreds, of examples of doctors falsely claiming that mothers (or their babies) would die, if they continued with their pregnancies. Thankfully, these women didn't listen to these so-called "medical professionals."
They had wonderful children, whom they loved very much. Sometimes only for a short while. Others, celebrate the birthdays of their grandchildren, products of the baby the doctors assured the mother would end in either her, or the unborn baby's (fetus in Latin) death.
You really need to educate yourself on this subject, if you are going to try to argue about it in public. It could save you some embarrassment.
Anonymous| 2.5.11 @ 4:27PM
You're right, we should all seriously listen to religious fools before taking the word of licensed medical professionals.
The pox on your M.D., bring me a witch doctor!
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 7:42PM
Anonymous,
You seem to be the one missing brain activity.
I've stated twice already that I've heard many doctors state that there is no medical condition that would require the intentional killing of the unborn baby (fetus in Latin,) i.e. an abortion.
The "witch doctors" are the pro-aborts who worship Molech. Like the monster Kermit Gosnell from Philly, who is charged with the muder of one woman and seven babies born alive. But, who actually murdered thousands over the years.
Gosnell also liked to cut the feet off of the babies and keep them in jars around his abortion mill. Just like the alien in the movie Predator. Or, Jeffery Dahmer.
Anonymous| 2.5.11 @ 8:46PM
Of course, your hearsay automatically overrides what medical professionals regularly diagnose and act upon to preserve life.
You need to start reading medical journals instead of babbling "what you heard." Nobody believes the second-hand appeals to authority of a dullard on the Internet.
Then again, maybe preeclampsia, diabetes related complications, heart disease, trauma, pulmonary hypertension, and ectopic pregnancies are just minor complications that wouldn't threaten a pregnant woman's life.
And, incidentally, fetus does not mean unborn child in Latin. It means the act of giving birth. Your use of the word is from Middle English.
Please educate yourself. You sound like you could use it.
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 11:16PM
Anonymous,
"Nobody believes the second-hand appeals to authority of a dullard on the Internet."
Now, now...you are being much to hard on yourself.
You are ignorant, but dullard is much to harsh.
My use of the word fetus (Latin for unborn baby) comes from an English/Latin dictionary. Nice try.
Also, enough with the straw men, it is getting tedious. I never claimed that there are no medical conditions that can threaten a pregnant woman's life. Seriously, can you read and comprehend the English language?
I will continue to repeat myself, maybe it will sink in to your thick skull: There is NO medical condition that would require the intentional killing of the unborn baby (fetus in Latin,) i.e. an abortion.
Is that clear enough for you, brainiac?
If not, read my comment to Kerry, below.
Anonymous| 2.7.11 @ 1:21PM
Aha, so you're not contending that there is no condition that would cause a pregnant woman to die unless she gets an abortion, you're just saying that two dead people is better than one.
Makes perfect sense.
And as for the fetus definition:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fetus
Want to take a guess at how many Latin speakers were alive in the 14th Century? Well, for those of us who care about language, Latin definitions stopped being modified after the fall of Rome.
Spend less time being a self-righteous dullard, and more time reading things that weren't jotted down by stupefied bedouins (pretty as their vestments may be).
Nick| 2.7.11 @ 2:00PM
Anonymous,
You really need a remedial English class.
Or, are you still in elementary school?
No, I still contend that there is NO medical condition that would require an abortion, because DOCTORS say there is never a medical reason that requires the deliberate killing of an unborn baby (fetus in Latin.) Why don't you get a grown-up to explain what I wrote, okay?
As for fetus (unborn baby in Latin,) this is from the Random House dictionary:
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English < Latin fētus bringing forth of young, hence that which is born, offspring, young still in the womb, equivalent to fē- (v. base attested in L only in noun derivatives, as fēmina woman, fēcundus fecund, etc.; compare Greek thēsthai to suck, milk, Old High German tāan to suck, Old Irish denid (he) sucks) + -tus suffix of v. action
(emphasis mine)
Do you still want to argue this, Einstein? I told you that I got that definition from an English/Latin dictionary.
Some friendly advice: When in a hole, stop digging!
Anonymous| 2.7.11 @ 2:49PM
You basically said the same thing I just did:
Given the choice between sacrificing the fetus so the mother can live, or letting both die, you choose to let them both die.
I wouldn't choose such cowardly inaction, but you're free to.
You're still using the Middle English definition.
Look more closely at the definition I shared with you:
late 14c., "the young while in the womb or egg," from L. fetus (often, incorrectly, foetus) "the bearing, bringing forth, or hatching of young," from Latin base *fe- "to generate, bear," also "to suck, suckle" (see fecund). In Latin, fetus sometimes was transferred figuratively to the newborn creature itself, or used in a sense of "offspring, brood" (cf. Horace's "Germania quos horrida parturit Fetus"), but this was not the basic meaning. Also used of plants, in the sense of "fruit, produce, shoot." The spelling foetus is sometimes attempted as a learned Latinism, but it is not historic.
It's like saying that the English for courage is "spine."
So who's digging a hole again? I vote for the clearly agitated and vitriolic commentator who needs to polish up on his Latin.
Nick| 2.7.11 @ 3:29PM
Anonymous,
No, that is not what I'm stating, at all. Why can't you read?
I have not written anything close to claiming that I would "choose to let them both die," as you have repeatedly asserted, falsely. Stop lying.
And, the part of the "word origin" that I highlighted was the Latin definition, not the Middle English, brainiac. Look again. Your problem is with Random House, not me. Fetus is Latin for unborn baby, as I have always stated.
Why aren't you defending the monster Kermit Gosnell, from Philly, who kept many unborn babys' (fetus in Latin) severed feet in jars all over his abortion mill? Isn't he your hero?
Anonymous| 2.7.11 @ 4:03PM
If that's the case, then I suggest you rephrase yourself, because you've clearly stated two things:
- There exist conditions that would kill a woman and her unborn if she does not get an abortion.
- You oppose the performance of medically necessary abortions, even when the mother's life is at stake.
From these two, I can only surmise that you support the moral cowardice of letting the mother die from complications arising from her pregnancy.
If you think that I'm misunderstanding you, then I suggest that you go back to college (if you went at all) and take a logic elective.
Now, for your Latin. The definition you highlighted is indeed the Latin, but as I highlighted this is not the primary definition. Let me highlight a few examples of what you're doing...
Courage (spine in English)
Cowardice (yellow in English)
Bravery (salt in English)
Romantic (sap in English)
These words do have definitions that mean the above, but these are not the primary uses of the word. Similarly, the primary use of "fetus" in Latin was never to describe an unborn child, that was a figurative definition.
As for Kermit Gosnell, why do you keep bringing him up? I hate him as much I hate any murderous, malpracticing, predatory, sociopathic piece of filth.
PS: Learn to spell "babies."
Nick| 2.8.11 @ 1:34AM
Anonymous,
You clearly have the brain function of a lower life form. A dog perhaps, maybe a pig. Young childred don't take this long to understand a simple concept.
I don't know how much clearer I can be. My position is the Catholic Church's position. It is also the postition of the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of physicians, of differing faiths, who absolutely refuse to perform abortions, i.e. kill unborn babies (fetus in Latin.)
But, let me try again. There are medical conditions that can put a pregnant women's health at risk, and may even indanger her life. There is never a medical reason to intentionally kill the unborn baby (fetus in Latin) in order to save the mother's life.
The answer is to treat both patients, the mother and her unborn baby (fetus in Latin,) and trust in God. If the fetus (Latin for unborn baby) dies while treating the mother, that is not an abortion. It was not intentional, i.e. the treatment was not intended to end the life of the baby, even though that was a foreseeable outcome, and tragic result.
So, your misnomer "medically necessary abortions" is a lie. Abortion, i.e. killing an unborn baby (fetus in Latin) is NEVER a medical necessity.
Nick| 2.8.11 @ 1:59AM
Now, back to the fetus conundrum.
Here is your first reference to the word fetus: "Fetus is a medical term used to describe the period between embryo and infant. Usually after two months." - Anonymous
Then, after 24 hours (and I'm sure after someone told you,) you stated this: "[...] fetus does not mean unborn child in Latin. It means the act of giving birth. Your use of the word is from Middle English." No mention, here, of "primary use," so, your statement is false.
Now, today, days later (and who knows how people you've asked for help over the weekend) you try to justify your obtuseness by writing: "Similarly, the primary use of "fetus" in Latin was never to describe an unborn child, that was a figurative definition." (This was after you wrongly stated that I'd highlighted the Middle English definition, when I had clearly emphasised the Latin one, i.e. "young in the womb," or unborn baby.)
You have admitted, in writing, that I was correct all along, by stating that there were other definitions of the word fetus. But, you can't bring yourself to admit that you were wrong. This is an affliction common to all bleeding heart liberals, like yourself.
Critical thinking is not your strong suit. Stick to drama, or whatever Arts program you majored in at college. (Notice I didn't write "graduated from.")
I took a shot at the plural possessive of "baby." English was my worst subject, so I don't claim to be a great grammarian (which I had to look up!)
Finally, I keep bringing up Gosnell because he is the rule, not the exception, when it comes to abortion. Not his horror shop of an abortion mill, mind you.
But, not having life saving medical equipment on site; having non-trained, non-medical personnel, administer anesthetic; letting nurses execute abortions; routinely perforating internal organs; and routinely leaving the dismembered body parts of the unborn babies (fetus in Latin,) so that they cause life threatening infections; this lack of concern for the well-being of the mother is stardard operating procedure for abortionists.
Even at the abortion mills in the suburbs that cater to "rich, white women," as Gosnell put it.
Anonymous| 2.8.11 @ 12:56PM
I love how you keep trying to justify killing both and saving neither.
It's almost as amusing as those kindergarten insults you keep peddling. What's next? Am I a poopyhead, Nick?
Look, if you can live with watching people die unneccessarily as you stand by and pray to your impotent god, then that's your business. For my part, I'll call you a coward and a fool. Make your excuses to yourself, because you have to live with it.
When lives are in danger and difficult decisions have to be made, we depend on our doctors to make the right call, to do the most good, and to save lives. If you want to go to a Catholic hospital that refuses to perform abortions, that's fine, but we'll see how desolate the maternity ward gets when mothers trust their lives to someone else.
And, let me get this straight... you're continuing to use your tertiary definition for a word that was never used in that respect? And I'm the one who can't admit I'm wrong? I guess you really didn't take any logic electives, if you went to college, that is. Judging from your ignorance of your own first language, I'm guessing you didn't.
And if Gosnell is the rule, then why is he on trial? Have you even been in a hospital that wasn't run by nuns? Were they still practicing with leeches and blood-letting? Maybe a Hail Mary or two over a dying mother to speed her and her ectopic child to heaven?
If Gosnell is par for the course, then go ahead. In 2005, the latest reporting date for statistical analysis, there were 809,881 abortions performed in the United States. The reported deaths arising from complications were 9 deaths.
Wow. I'd *love* to hear you explain that one.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previe.....ss5808a1_e
Nick| 2.8.11 @ 2:39PM
Whoa! I seem to have struck a nerve.
I'd better not converse with you anymore. I wouldn't wany you to go all "Jared Loughner" on us, as you crazy leftists are wont to do.
p.s. Stop your lying, you'll feel better.
p.p.s. The key word in your claim, "The reported deaths arising from complications were 9 deaths," is reported.
Anonymous| 2.8.11 @ 6:01PM
Whoah, complaints about civility? This coming from someone who spouts such vitriolic things as accusing me of having the faculties of a lower lifeform, being in elementary school, needing remedial English classes (an ironic claim it turned out), and missing brain activity.
Oh! Stay thine barbs, Anonymous!
P.S.: Have a happy life as a moral coward.
P.P.S.: It was actually 7, I was checking if you'd actually read it. If you have different numbers, feel free to share. Actual numbers, not more of this "some doctor I know from my podunk parish said" nonsense.
Nick| 2.8.11 @ 6:19PM
Who's complaining about incivility? I surely am not.
You are the one who has constantly complained about my clever jabs, while at the same time being rude and attacking me, and others, on this thread, hypocrite.
Physician, heal thyself.
p.s. You sure do have thin skin, get over yourself! You're not a quarter as smart as you seem to think you are.
Anonymous| 2.8.11 @ 6:48PM
Wow, I think you just might be Howie Mandel's kindred spirit in comedy. Maybe you two can get together and put on a show for insomniacs everywhere.
Now, I think our impasse is easily describable. We can at least agree on the following:
- There exist medical conditions that threaten a woman's life during pregnancy
- Abortions have been shown empirically to avert these life-threatening conditions
- You believe that abortions are never an option
Consequentially, in any hypothetical or real situation where a mother is in danger of losing her life due to pregnancy complications, you support doing nothing.
Hence, you are a moral coward who refuses to take action when lives are threatened. I count you in the same stock as the reprehensible human beings who have qualms (religious or otherwise) with protecting the ones they love from harm. It's equally disgusting to let your wife die from a burglar's bullet or an ectopic pregnancy.
Nick| 2.8.11 @ 11:46PM
Anonymous,
Again, because you don't understand the Queen's English, NO, we do not agree. Why do you keep lying?
Abortion has not been shown "empirically to avert" life-threatening situations. As the monster Kermit Gosnell, who keeps the severed feet of unborn babies (fetus in Latin,) has clearly shown.
Deciding to get an abortion endangers the life of the mother more than any natural condition ever could.
We can agree that pro-abort lefties, like yourself, will continue to cover for monsters like Gosnell, Tiller the Baby Killer, and all the rest of the abortion mill operators, all in the name of the fallacious "right to choose," and to satisfy your god, Molech.
I pity you, and pray for your soul.
God Bless.
p.s. Everyone knows it is bleeding heart liberals who refuse to protect their wives, not conservatives.
Anonymous| 2.9.11 @ 1:27PM
Well, it's ironic that you accuse me of not understanding the Queens English for three reasons:
- It refers to British English
- It refers to a monarch (aren't you American?)
- It refers to an accent
Again, I find it mind-boggling that someone so ignorant of their own first language (English is actually my second) would call attention to it by feigning deficiency in someone else.
Next, let's look empirically at what you're saying: Abortion has not been shown to empirically avert life-threatening situations.
If you'd like to argue medical science, then let's go ahead. A few things nobody can dispute:
- Ectopic pregnancy occurs when the zygote attaches to the wall of the fallopian tube, rather than the uterus, and gestates in this smaller area
- By the time the fetus has grown to the size of a tennis ball, it will begin to block the fallopian pathway and eventually rupture it, causing massive internal bleeding and soon thereafter: death
- When caught at an early stage, doctors can easily remove the fetus and save the mother's life
How you ignore any of this is equally baffling to me. What a Kermit Gosnell shows you about abortion is the same thing Charles Manson shows me about Christianity. Nothing.
Now for the lethality rate of abortion:
As I showed statistically, the lethality rate of abortion is about 7 in 809,881. That's less than a one in 1,000,000 chance of lethality. Next.
I recall calling Kermit Gosnell a "murderous, malpracticing, predatory, sociopathic piece of filth." Next.
Pray for someone who needs it. Pray for the thousands who die every month in the Lord's Resistance Army of Uganda. An army of Christian children drafted from raped mothers, forced to fight for a man who wants to make the Ten Commandments the only law of the land.
But hey, who cares about them? It's obviously more important to your god to keep life-saving medical procedures away from women, and condoms away from Africans with AIDS.
P.S.: I see a conservative right here with no intestinal fortitude to kill to protect his wife. Would you kill a burglar for threatening her? Then why wouldn't you "kill" a mass of cells that will never ever be born in the first place? I can see only one answer: You're a coward, and you're a hypocrite. Willing to sin one way but not the other. I pity your lack of spine (animum in Latin).
Anonymous| 2.9.11 @ 2:57PM
Correction: 1 in 100,000. Somehow managed to hit an extra zero. Please disregard the above figure and use this instead.
Link for "Queen's English" definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.....nunciation
Also note that "tennis ball" size accounts for the very largest possible size of a fetus before rupturing the fallopian tube. Earlier ruptures (due to being in a different area, or growing from a different angle) is possible.
Nick| 2.9.11 @ 4:50PM
Anonymous,
Ah-ha! I knew it! I knew English was your second language, you fuzzy little foreigner. (I kid, ha-ha!)
I wrote the "Queen's English" because I have English ancestry, and my late mom was Canadian. But, yes, I'm a proud American.
As regards ectopic pregnancies, this is where your lack of reading comprehension skills totally invalidate your arguments. The Catholic Church has no prohibition to treating the mother for such a condition.
If the pregnancy starts to endanger the mother's life, i.e. severe bleeding, it is morally permissible for the doctor to remove the damaged fallopian tube, as the organ is clearly diseased. Unfortunately, this results in the death of the unborn baby (fetus in Latin,) but, it was not the intent of the procedure. It was a tragic consequence.
Someday, it may be possible to remove the baby and implant him into the uterus, to save his life. It is not morally permissible to use methotrexate, or open the up the tube and remove, i.e. kill, the baby. The intent of these two procedures is to kill the baby, directly.
For more on this, read this link:
http://www.ncbcenter.org/NetCo.....px?pid=940
And, yes, I would kill that burglar, because he has intent, where the unborn baby (fetus in Latin) has none. The fetus (Latin for unborn baby) is completely innocent.
Now, I love arguing about science, especially provable science. Would you like to discuss when, exactly, biological human life begins?
Medical science states that human life begins at conception. That "mass of cells," as you put it, is a human being, with the same right to life that we all have. You were once that mass of cells.
This is why lefty pro-aborts, like yourself, don't want to discuss monsters like Gosnell and Tiller the Baby Killer, because you can't claim they aren't killing human beings. You'd rather keep the conversation away from that ugly fact.
Just answer when, precisely, that "mass of cells" stops being a mass of cells, and becomes a human being, according to science. Human life must have a beginning. When is it?
Nick| 2.10.11 @ 12:22AM
Oh, yeah, one more thing.
As I stated before, about your statistics, the key word is reported.
The cases of the mothers that were killed by monsters like the abortionists Gosnell, John Biskind, Moshe Hachamovitch, and Andrew Rutland show that these deaths go unreported, because state agencies don't investigate abortion mills in this country.
So, your statistics are bogus.
Nick| 2.12.11 @ 11:26AM
Anonymous? Hello? Where'd you go?
I guess you didn't want to discuss when life begins, huh? What a shock!
Frisbee| 2.8.11 @ 9:51PM
Anonymous wrote: "I love how you keep trying to justify killing both and saving neither."
Sorry, that is stupid. We wouldn't kill either one or both. You want to kill one directly to save the other.
Anonymous| 2.9.11 @ 1:28PM
Would you kill to save your wife from danger?
Would you call a man a coward if he did otherwise?
If your answer is yes, then I have no idea why you have any problem with anything I've said.
Frisbee| 2.11.11 @ 9:45PM
No.
Frisbee| 2.4.11 @ 1:43PM
Great article and great comments. These are times of great portent. While reviewing Paul's letter to Bishop Timothy, I came across this"
"Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning." 1 Tim 5:20
The church proclaimed by Paul is alive and well in Bishop Olmsted.
Rich Rostrom| 2.5.11 @ 1:25AM
"vampire chronicler Anne Rice" ...and sadomasochistic pornographer. Four novels about the delights of bondage, flagellation, and sex slavery (under now-revealed pen names "Anne Rampling" and "A.N. Roquelaure").
Tina B| 2.5.11 @ 10:33AM
Wonderful post Nick. God bless you.
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 11:47AM
Thanks Tina, I appriciate that, very much.
God Bless!
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 11:49AM
Oops! Make that: I appreciate that, very much
mortimer| 2.5.11 @ 2:08PM
the tenets of judaism(christoff) are hostile towards christians and the talmud is blatant in its hate for jesus. google "jews burning new testaments in religious ceromonies" "rabbis spitting on the cross and american christians in israel" "israel bans christmas trees and crosses in israel" "jews ban crosses in israel" now with so much hate for christ should jews be able to write pieces about christianity????? that is the real issue
kerry| 2.5.11 @ 3:54PM
I for one would like to know the facts of this case before I villainize the mother and the medical professionals faced with this case. I am certainly not prochoice and believe life begins at conception, however, I find it disturbing that the catholic church believes that the baby's life must be preserved at any and all cost, even to it's own life/mother's life. I found the following essay and follow up comments online, as this case has been of interest to me. I cannot provide a link as it will be marked as spam, so I will tell you the author of the blog is Gerard Nadal, and the title of the article is "The Phoenix abortion: A pediatric cardiologist weighs in". Once you read the article, please look down to the comments, for a rebuttal/response from the cardiologist that was quoted in the original article. I will quote a short amount of her response here:
"Let us be clear.
1 – Pulmonary hypertension is a terrible disease and is very commonly quite lethal
2 – It is something that cannot quickly or easily be fixed or even improved WITH ANY KNOW MEDICAL THERAPY. It carries an unacceptably high mortality rate when it occurs, and IT RARELY REARS IT’S HEAD BEFORE THE PATIENT IS QUITE ILL AND THE HEART IS FAILING bringing them to medical attention.
3 – Fortunately it is uncommon, BUT THAT IS VERY DIFFERENT FORM CONTENDING IT IS NOT LIKELY TO HAVE HAPPENED IN THIS CASE. If it was a common enough occurrence a consult to the ethics committee would not have been necessary.
3 – Fortunately it is an uncommon disease BUT it does happen and FROM A MEDICAL PERSPECTIVE, if that was the case, Sister McBride and her medical staff DID EVERYTHING RIGHT.
You may argue this all you want from the perspective of canon law, but do not use my words to argue it from a medical perspective. And, if, in fact in it’s infinite wisdom, the church rules that it is less sinful to lose two lives than save one, I can understand why there is a crisis of faith."
my question is, if any interference that may result in the death of the fetus, due to the nature of the procedure or treatment, is forbidden by the Church, then should there be any lifesaving treatment, even that that may be directed at the baby, be done? An example would be fetal surgery, which is still highly dangerous and risky, that would be the only avenue to save the life of the baby. A recent example would be the woman who had the surgery when they discovered the baby had a large tumor that was endangering it's life and would have resulted in fetal demise.
Does medical judgement mean anything, or is everything based on God's will? I am not mocking anyone here for the spiritual belief or faith, but I find this case and the church's response shocking and cruel.
Nick| 2.5.11 @ 7:27PM
Kerry,
I'm afraid that you find the Church's response "shocking and cruel" because you do not understand what, exactly, is the Church's position.
The Church in no way forbids medical treatment (or "interference, as you put it) for a life threatening condition, even if that treatment might be a risk to the unborn baby's (fetus in Latin) that could result in death.
If a pregnant woman finds out that she has a cancer that can only be treated by chemo, even though it puts her unborn baby (fetus in Latin) at risk of death, she may get the treatment and still be in communion with the Catholic Church.
For a Catholic, it all comes down to intent. Abortion is the intentional killing of an unborn baby (fetus in Latin). A baby that dies as the result of medical treatment to save the mother's life was not deliberately killed. See the difference?
A Catholic sees both the mother's life, and the baby's, as equal, so, there should be an attempt to save both lives, if possible.
Here's another example. If a pregnant woman gets shot, and the surgeon has to perform a procedure that most likely will end the unborn baby's life (fetus in Latin,) he can do the procedure, but should also do what he can to save the baby, if possible. He cannot play God and kill the baby to make his chances of success better. He has to treat both lives equally.
Hope that clears things up for you.
fpmeehan| 2.6.11 @ 3:40AM
Thank you, Lisa, for addressing this NYT article that is clearly critical of the Catholic Church. When I broached this subject with Catholic women in my Bible study, I couldn't believe that two of them supported the article! They thought that the Bishop was wrong. I pray that they will join with the Church in knowing that abortion is wrong under all circumstances. While some might believe that the hospital was being compassionate of the mother, killing her child will leave her damaged spiritually, mentally and physically (not to mention the child's death). Read LIME 5 about the abuses with abortions. It's truly shocking. Thank you for the courage to defend the RCC - which by the way is the largest Rite of the Catholic Church and is considered it's most representative.
Tim| 2.6.11 @ 10:30PM
Jesus warned his disciples that they would be reviled and persecuted. So it has been since the founding if His Church. However, if this world lasts another millennia, there will still be a Catholic church to comfort the afflicted and disturb the consciences of the too comfortable. The New York Times will be long forgotten.
Mistral| 2.7.11 @ 2:59PM
Little wonder it is that so-called western society is on the brink of demographic collapse in the face of immigrant minorities who continue to have large famlies & slowly but inexorably occupy greater percentages of population ratios. In the meantime those psychologically impaired liberals and socialists continue to encourage society to keep committing demographic suicide ending life at conception, gestation, when partially born & when becoming elderly. Now already propagating the noxious false idea that sterile sodomy & other perverted relationships are normal, soon they will be advocating children have the right to commit suicide if they wish and without their parents foreknowledge.
Absolute decline is but a bare generation away!
Frisbee| 2.7.11 @ 8:00PM
Nick: thank you for your tenacity. God bless you.
Nick| 2.8.11 @ 2:03AM
Thank you, Frisbee.
I really appreciate it.
God Bless!
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 4:06PM
The Church requires her members to have their marriages witnessed, by the church. My brother was married to a Lutheran girl in a Lutheran church, with a Catholic priest present to witness it. Not sure how canonically correct that was, but it was done.
Also, in the case of marriage, the Church distinguishes between sacramental and non-sacramental marriages, and it makes a huge difference whether both spouses are baptized or not.