-
The Incredible Shrinking Monsieur Hollande
May 7, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Islam and the Closing of the Secular Mind
September 19, 2012 | 97 comments
-
A Book That Changed Reality
August 15, 2012 | 5 comments
-
The Prophet of Europe’s Crisis
July 2, 2012 | 9 comments
-
Why Austerity Isn’t Enough
June 8, 2012 | 26 comments
Special Report
Benedict XVI: In No One’s Shadow
Critics seem willfully blind to his civilizational mission.
It was inevitable. In the lead-up to John Paul II’s beatification, a number of publications decided it was time to opine about the direction of Benedict XVI’s pontificate. The Economist, for example, portrayed a pontificate adrift, “accident-prone,” and with a “less than stellar record” compared to Benedict’s dynamic predecessor (who, incidentally, didn’t meet with the Economist’s approval either).
It need hardly been said that, like most British publications, the Economist’s own record when it comes to informed commentary on Catholicism and religion more generally is itself less than stellar. And the problems remain the same as they have always been: an unwillingness to do the hard work of trying to understand a religion on its own terms, and a stubborn insistence upon shoving theological positions into secular political categories.
Have mistakes occurred under Benedict’s watch? Yes. Some sub-optimal appointments? Of course. That would be true of any leader of such a massive organization.
But the real difficulty with so much commentary on this papacy is the sheer narrowness of the perspective brought to the subject. If observers were willing to broaden their horizons, they might notice just how big are the stakes being pursued by Benedict. This pope’s program, they may discover, goes beyond mere institutional politics. He’s pursuing a civilizational agenda.
And that program begins with the Catholic Church itself. Even its harshest critics find it difficult to deny Catholicism’s decisive influence on Western civilization’s development. It follows that a faltering in the Church’s confidence about its purpose has implications for the wider culture.
That’s one reason Benedict has been so proactive in rescuing Catholic liturgy from the banality into which it collapsed throughout much of the world (especially the English-speaking world) after Vatican II. Benedict’s objective here is not a reactionary “return to the past.” Rather, it’s about underscoring the need for liturgy to accurately reflect what the Church has always believed — lex orandi, lex credendi — rather than the predilections of an aging progressivist generation that reduced prayer to endless self-affirmation.
This attention to liturgy is, I suspect, one reason why another aspect of Benedict’s pontificate — his outreach to the Orthodox Christian churches — has been remarkably successful. As anyone who’s attended Orthodox services knows, the Orthodox truly understand liturgy. Certainly Benedict’s path here was paved by Vatican II, Paul VI, and John Paul II. Yet few doubt that Catholic-Orthodox relations have taken off since 2005.
That doesn’t mean the relationship is uncomplicated by unhappy historical memories, secular political influences, and important theological differences. Yet it’s striking how positively Orthodox churches have responded to the German pope’s overtures. They’ve also become increasingly vocal in echoing Benedict’s concerns about Western culture’s present trajectory.
But above all, Benedict has — from his pontificate’s very beginning — gone to the heart of the rot within the West, a disease which may be described as pathologies of faith and reason.
In this regard, Benedict’s famous 2006 Regensburg address may go down as one of the 21st century’s most important speeches, comparable to Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s 1978 Harvard Address in terms of its accuracy in identifying some of the West’s inner demons.
Most people think about the Regensburg lecture in terms of some Muslims’ reaction to Benedict’s citation of a 14th century Byzantine emperor. That, however, is to miss Regensburg’s essence. It was really about the West.
Christianity, Benedict argued at Regensburg, integrated Biblical faith, Greek philosophy, and Roman law, thereby creating the “foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.” This suggests that any weakening of this integration of faith and reason would mean the West would start losing its distinctive identity. In short, a West without a Christianity that integrates faith and reason is no longer the West.
Today, Benedict added, we see what happens when faith and reason are torn asunder. Reason is reduced to scientism and ideologies of progress, thereby rending reasoned discussion of anything beyond the empirical impossible. Faith dissolves into sentimental humanitarianism, an equally inadequate basis for rational reflection. Neither of these emaciated facsimiles of their originals can provide any coherent response to the great questions pondered by every human being: “Who am I?” “Where did I come from?” “Where am I going?”
So what’s the way back? To Benedict’s mind, it involves affirming that what he recently called creative reason lies at the origin of everything.
As Benedict explained one week before he beatified his predecessor: “We are faced with the ultimate alternative that is at stake in the dispute between faith and unbelief: are irrationality, lack of freedom and pure chance the origin of everything, or are reason, freedom and love at the origin of being? Does the primacy belong to unreason or to reason? This is what everything hinges upon in the final analysis.”
About the Author
Samuel Gregg is Research Director at the Acton Institute. He has authored several books including On Ordered Liberty, his prize-winning The Commercial Society, Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy, and, most recently, Becoming Europe: Economic Decline, Culture, and America’s Future.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (417) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Samuel Gregg
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/06/benedict-xvi-in-no-ones-shadow
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Kevin Dunn| 5.6.11 @ 6:27AM
"Reason is reduced to scientism and ideologies of progress, thereby rending reasoned discussion of anything beyond the empirical impossible. " In fact, the situation actually becomes worse than this - reason without faith becomes bad reason - the so-called New Age is a mish-mash of bad rerason and bad faith. One is dependent on the other - in fact one is part of the other, like the two sides of the same coin. The "ideologies of progress" of the Nazi and Communist Revolutions led not to the triumph of scienticism, but to madness. The French Revolution, an earlier "ideology of progress" would have gone the same way if Napoleon had not put a stop to it. Though neither Adam Smith nor Edmund Burke are thought of prtimarily as theological philosophers, their writings contain a good deal of still-timely warnings along these lines. to deform either faith or reason is todeform human nature - one reasson why the Left is emerging not merely as an instrument of dissdent, but as a deadly enemy of human civilization.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:58AM
We will surely lose our battle without faith.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:01PM
Fideism excluding Reason and Rationalism excluding Faith are both extremist isolationaist viewpoints. Faith and reason are both required to live well and to make sense of life.
Those who advocate "reason alone" fail to admit that reason must act on premises. The necessity of premises are analogous to the necessity of faith. In the natural order, believing your senses is an act of natural faith that occurs in every healthy human being. In the fully human order, including emotional, spiritual, and psychological dimensions, faith in God is essential to a healthy human life.
Dave Williams| 5.6.11 @ 1:07PM
Sorry, no. My atheist friends and I lead perfectly healthy lives, by any definition. We do worthy work, support those who need it, enjoy the majesty and beauty of nature, and, realizing that this life is the only one we'll ever get, strive to make it meaningful and pleasant for ourselves and for others. Good without God? You betcha.
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 2:37PM
Why does it matter?
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 3:02PM
What you don't realize is you have been drawing off the interest accrued from 2000 years of Christian civilization. Beliefs and doctrines, behavior and mores you take for granted were actually developed over centuries by the Church and its Gospel.
Think of it as a trust fund--you can begin drawing down on the account, taking out first the interest, then the principal. But eventually, unless you are paying into the account, even the principal will be gone, and they you will be seriously overdrawn.
I fear that, since the Age of Reason, we have been eating our way through the interest accrued in the civilizational account, and are now tapping on the principal. Unless we find a new source of income to replenish the account, the descent into barbarism will accelerate and then succeed.
Patrick| 5.7.11 @ 2:11AM
So optimistic. We've been withdrawing since the Enlightenment, and spending our principal since the early 1800's. We have descended into barbarism already. Pope Benedict is now trying to keep us out of excessive debt.
Occam's Tool| 6.22.11 @ 10:08PM
Stuart, you are absolutely correct.
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 4:56PM
I can define Atheism in 3 sentences. We come from nothing. We are here for no reason. We are going no-where. Is it any wonder most of the world's peoples espouse a religion? I could add a 4th sentence. We have no anwers.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:11PM
Well, Jack, all your answers are wrong. Sorry.
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 10:15PM
Still no answers. Athiests have no answers. My discription in 3 sentences stands. Atheism means. We come from nothing. We are here for no reason. We are going nowhere.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:10PM
Dear Dave:
I'm sure your life is fine. I'm not disputing atheism as a PERSONAL choice, I'm desputing it as a SOCIETAL choice. There is no secular society with a replacement birthrate, much less above replacement. Therefore, secularism, as a society choice, is a dead end.
JohnB| 5.6.11 @ 9:37PM
So sorry, Dave, but no: you and your friends don't lead perfectly healthy lives, because "you" don't exist. "You" are an illusion. "You" have the illusion of consciousness, of freedom of will. "You" don't actually "support," or "enjoy" or "strive," because "You" are actually a bag of random chemicals that bumped into each other and came together over billions of years. "YOU" don't exist. Why do you think that the Bible quotes God as saying that He is "I AM." No, sorry, but in the final analysis, "YOU ARE NOT," because "YOU" are not an infinitely self-existing Being. Bunch of palpitating protoplasm. Call it what you like, but "YOU" are caught in the illusion of existence. Whereas, because I know God, have the REAL THING.....TOO BAD for YOU!!
Patrick| 5.7.11 @ 2:14AM
Your perfectly healthy lives provided by the past efforts of Christendom. A flatworm can live a perfectly healthy life inside the guts of a dying man. Of course, the parasite never thanks his host.
Alan Brooks| 5.6.11 @ 6:54PM
Benedict is so good he makes up for Hitler
Appleby| 5.6.11 @ 7:01AM
The Israelites could not enter the promised land until the generation with the taint of slavery had passed away. I think our current situation is much the same; we will have the hippie scum of the church, as well as the state, dragging at our heels and impeding change until they too pass into history.
It is a sad commentary that the generation that might have carried their torch was murdered in their wombs. That should be quite a discussion when we get to it.
Patrick| 5.7.11 @ 2:22AM
I'm one of those few that didn't get stabbed and sucked out in a tube.
I savor the day that the trendy hippie lies on his deathbed, and instead of tamborines and kumbaya hears, "Intróeat, Dómine Jesu Christe, domum hanc sub nostræ humilitátis ingréssu..."
Chris Martel| 5.8.11 @ 3:44AM
Awesome, that even had me trembling! Of course these aging wanna be hippies have no clue as to what you are saying.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 7:52AM
"Christianity, Benedict argued at Regensburg, integrated Biblical faith, Greek philosophy, and Roman law."
No, Mr. Ratzinger, it did not. Catholicism integrated Biblical faith, Greek philosophy, and Roman law, NOT Christianity. Christianity has NOTHING to do with Greek philosophy and Roman Law. Zero.
It's funny when the Pope, leader of all things Catholic, positively (yet unwittingly) confirms what some of us have been saying all along: The Catholic Church is not a primarily Christian organization, and it never has been. It surrounds itself with the trappings of Christianity to mask a decidedly political agenda.
It's nice that Mr. Ratzinger wants to return to a more basic Catholicism; too bad he doesn't want to return to basic Christianity.
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 8:42AM
The apostle Paul was VERY well schooled in Greek thought.
He didn't go into Athens unarmed. Acts 17 he more or less engages the Greek philosophers on their own level.
And if you ever take a passing glance at Plato, you'll see quite a few Biblical parallels. The early church (and through quite a bit of history) more or less adopted Aristotle at times as well (but that was to its detriment occasionally).
And Christianity absolutely integrated Roman Law down the road. It wouldn't have spread without the Pax Romana at all, and it more or less took over the Roman world and adapted their extremely efficient law system into modern use.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 10:11AM
Let me see if I understand the crux of your post:
1. Paul was well-educated in Greek philosophy.
So??? Paul did not become an Apostle until after the ascension. Are you implying that Christ was influenced by Greek philosophy? That would be...an interesting assertion, to say the least...
However, I DON'T disagree that the early Church adopted Aristotelian philosophy to attract gentiles as it slipped into apostasy.
You're confusing Christianity with Catholicism; again, Christianity DID NOT "integrate" Roman Law; Catholicism, however, most certainly did. Not only that, but it (Catholicism) also integrated Roman customs, particularly religious ones.
To assume that Christianity integrated Roman Law and Greek philosophy is to assume that the message of Christianity, as delivered in the Gospels and the Letters of the New Testament, was somehow incomplete, and lacking in substance, when it was not.
Christianity is not a philosophical system that requires an integration with worldly precepts and ideals to become meaningful. That idea is a conceit that has been spread by the Catholic Church since antiquity - that wise, learned men, men of letters, and stature are needed to interpret scripture for the masses. In fact, the opposite is true - scripture is clear and direct to anyone who can read; it is the "learned men" who have purposefully distorted the message, or kept it from the common people to protect their own power and position
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 11:33AM
There's a third road that we can consider - that God moved the Greek philosophers to come up with ideas that were compatible and recognizable as part of the Gospel when they are plugged into the message Christ brought. There's a LOT that Plato did that almost reads like a Christian wrote it.
There's a lot that was RIGHT with Greek philosophy. Paul wouldn't have been such an effective communicator without it. Paul wrote much of the Bible into Greek, and the Septuagint was more or less what the Christians and Jews had to read until the epistles and Gospels were more widespread.
I'm not stating that the Gospel message was ever changed. Christianity became a dominant force, and it did so when more and more of the masses - and thereby the political leaders - either became Christians or began tolerating Christianity.
It appears that you are automatically assuming there was something "wrong" with Roman law. There were a lot of issues, but there was ALSO a LOT of peace, a LOT of technological advancement, and a LOT of prosperity during the time....and the Romans were more or less a religiously tolerant lot, at least for the day and place as long as the people didn't rise up against the government or they needed a scapegoat (which is why Christians were persecuted at the time).
I mostly agree with your final paragraph; but it also doesn't mean that we can discount that which Christians historically looked at, debated, and pondered over as well. We didn't arrive to modern Christianity out of a vaccuum. We arrived because we DO stand on the shoulders of giants whose outlook we need to at least consider so that we don't re-visit the issues of the past that were already hammered out and debated over. Christianity didn't begin in the late 1800s with the rise of modern evangelicalism, nor during the Protestant Reformation, a point that many evangelicals ignore.
Take this in measure - I am, for lack of a better term, a Reformed Baptist and consider myself an evangelical and probably stand on the "fundamentalist" side of that spectrum.
potkas7| 5.6.11 @ 11:41AM
I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. It's true for the first 1500 years or so to be 'Christian' was to be Catholic. But the sobriquet 'Christian' was first used in Antioch at the time of the Apostles, i.e. before the end of the First Century. So it seems to me that trying to separate Christian from Catholic is really a distinction without a difference. And if the Catholic Church blended Greek Philosophy, Roman Law and Biblical Faith then the logical extension is so did Christianity.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:06PM
Sorry, but it's a HUGE difference.
So again...Catholicism did NOT = Christianity for the first 1,500 years after the ascension.
That they claimed to represent Christianity is irrelevant; it's quite obvious when contrasting Catholic Doctrine with the words of Christ and the Apostles that they are NOT compatible.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:11PM
Doctor Right is a hard exclusive anti Catholic. He thinks Jesus' foundation of a Church failed, and then Luther and Calvin founded the true Church.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 3:10PM
Umm...You're a fool and a liar, and that's being kind.
I NEVER said that Jesus' foundation failed.
I said that men twisted his words (as He knew they would) to satisfy their own desires. One of the deliberate distortions that resulted was the Catholic Church.
I also NEVER said I'm a Calvinist, or have any special regard for John Calvin.
NOR did I EVER claim to be a Lutheran (although I do admire Luther's brave stand against the corruption he saw in the Catholic Church).
It's quite clear that, being devoid of any rational, reasonable knowledge with which to debate, your solution is to smear. You must be a Liberal.
Nick| 5.6.11 @ 5:25PM
You're the one who takes The New York Slimes as gospel, Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. Pope Bigot I.
You secretly want Mo' Dowd to be your girlfriend, don't you?
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 5:43PM
I may be a fool but I'm no liar, not even tempted.
DR wrote: "I NEVER said that Jesus' foundation failed."
I didn't say you said it. I said you think it. So if his foundation didn't fail, and it's not the Catholic (+Orthodox etc) church... well, where is it?
DR wrote : "I said that men twisted his words".
Okay, so where are the men who DIDN'T twist his words? Do you have a list of TRUE successors of the Apostles? Where was the church that you say DIDN'T fail?
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:09PM
potkas7 wrote: "It's true for the first 1500 years or so to be 'Christian' was to be Catholic."
The words "Catholic Church" first appear in extant documents in a letter of St Ignatius of Antioch (where pagans invented the term "Christian"). St Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John.
The next most obvious appearance is in 325 AD at the Council of Nicea (shortly after Christianity and was legalized and Councils could exist again) which stated the marks of the church were "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.
But long before the "Reformation" revolt of the 1500's, the Eastern Church let the term "Catholic" take a back seat to the term "Orthodox".
potkas7| 5.6.11 @ 6:02PM
Yeah, I guess. When I used the therm 'Catholic' I was thinking of it more it its original meaning of 'Universal' than any particular confession. All of the contending parties in the early days of Christianity, I do believe, saw themselves as part of a transcendent movement and it was through their various arguments and contentions that Christianity came to synthesize Greek Philosophy, Roman Law and Biblical revelation.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:25PM
Actually, every Orthodox Church considers itself Catholic, and every Catholic Church considers itself Orthodox--and both are correct.
The first use of the term "Catholic Church" (Ekklesia Katholike) comes from St. Ignatius of Antioch, who lived in the last quarter of the first and second quarter of the second centuries, dying in the arena in Rome ca. AD 117. In the context that he used the word, "Catholic" (from the Greek kata + holon, "pertaining to the whole", fullness) referred to the fullness of the faith, which Ignatius saw as present through the celebration of the Eucharist by every bishop, assisted by his presbyters and deacons, surrounded by the people. "Where the Eucharist is [and that shows the word was in use before the end of the first century, and was accepted universally by that time] there is the Catholic Church.
The alternative meaning of "katholike" is universal, which is how the Latin Church chose to see it, especially from the end of the first millennium onward. But this is not a contradiction: the fullness of the faith that is present through the Eucharist, also establishes the universal dimension of the Church through the communion of all bishops with each other. For as the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, and as Christ is One, so there can be but one Eucharist, though the Eucharist is celebrated in many places and many times, being always the same Eucharist.
The concept of "Eucharistic Ecclesiology", revived by Russian Orthodox theologian Nicholas Afanasiev, was also adopted by the Latin Church at Vatican II as "the Ecclesiology of Communion". So there is significant convergence between East and West on this critical point, which gives hope for Christian unity in the future.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 9:31PM
The Eucharist is NOT a biblical teaching.
It is FALSE and disgusting.
God did not teach this, nor did the Apostles.
Jesus is not a wafer, nor is He contained physically in a wafer, as this cult teaches in the teaching of "The Eucharist".
And Good old Ignatious of Antioch believed this, showing that these false teachings entered very early on.
Jesus says in the Bible, to take Communion "in remembrance of Him".
"In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 Cor. 11:25
How anyone can actually believe that they are drinking the physical blood of, and eating the physical flesh of Jesus Christ is beyond common sense, and is the stuff that cults are made of.
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 10:23PM
Whats unbiblical about this my body and this is my blood. Do this in memory of me. How about unless you eat my body and drink of my blood you can't get to paradise. Even many of the followers of Jesus left over this teaching but it is in the Bible. The Mass goes back to the begining of the Church and all the Apostolic traditions have it, be they Catholic, Orthodox, or Coptic.
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 5:34PM
"The Eucharist is NOT a biblical teaching.
It is FALSE and disgusting."
Then why did Jesus not correct the Jews when they clearly took His words about the Eucharist literally (as noted specifically in St. John's Gospel)? And further, why do the writings of the early Church Fathers (to include St. Paul) make it clear that they understood His teaching about the Eucharist in those same literal terms?
Your vitriol aside, it is clear that Jesus was quite clear about what He meant regarding His Body and His Blood.
Jeremy Stevens| 5.9.11 @ 11:32AM
Poor Margie . . . like so many English-speaking Protestants is arguing from an English-language handicap, not realizing that the English "remembrance" does not do justice to the original Greek "anamnesis," and, therefore, that her argument is . . . how to put this charitably . . . uh, deficient.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:19AM
"I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. It's true for the first 1500 years or so to be 'Christian' was to be Catholic."
Ah, but one could also be "Orthodox".
"But the sobriquet 'Christian' was first used in Antioch at the time of the Apostles, i.e. before the end of the First Century."
So, too, was the term "Catholic", first used (in writing) by Ignatios of Antioch (a long way from Rome), who wrote of the Ekklesia katholike--the Catholic Church. This was within a few years of the death of John the Apostle, whom Ignatios knew personally.
mames| 5.6.11 @ 12:20PM
Scripture can speak for itself and the Roman church has decided that human reason trumps it. The problem with this is Christ warned against the reason of men above scripture. Whenever human reason dovetails with scripture it is always in the area of morality or natural reason never in the area of salvation, God came up- with that himself! :)
As for Paul he used his understanding of Greek thought and religion so as to speak with them in their own "language" . In this way he was following the method of Christ who always met people where they were.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:06PM
Well said.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:12PM
Jesus himself used reason. Indeed, he is the Logos.
What is wrong with you people?
Ted| 5.6.11 @ 1:47PM
Alas, Frisbee, you are dealing with persons who, every time the Catholic Church (specifically the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church) is mentioned tend to lose the insight, intelligence, wit, and charity they usually dispaly on the comments pages.....
The "Roman" Church has not decided that that reason trumps Scripture. As Mark Shea (another Evangelical convert who knows his Scripture) put it, the Catholic Church (not just the Roman Rite, but the entire Catholic Church) sees Scripture and Tradition as light and lens. Remember, as St. Paul himself said many times, oral teaching (Tradition) came before the written Christian Scriptures as he told his letter recipients to hold fast to what they have been taught.
Dan| 5.6.11 @ 8:10PM
exactly
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 3:06PM
Yes, He's the Word of God, made flesh.
Not the word of the Greeks.
So which is it? Earthly reasoning? Or the divinely inspired Word of God?
'Cuz it can't be both...
canuckistani| 5.6.11 @ 3:26PM
Jesus was a Jew raised in Nazareth. He applied his teachings using the tongue of his people, the practices and customs etc. Otherwise he would have been rejected as a whack job.
The evolution - yes evolution of the Church MUST by nature be imbued by the local customs that chose to adopt the Christian ethic. Not the central themes, but the interpretations of them. Jesus referenced many times about slaves and slavery per the contemporaneous laws and customs, and the role of the occupation government - are we to assume that he presupposed these facts would be the civil standard by which future generations would live under?
I doubt it and us rejecting the possibility that other traditions may be sifted amongst the central Christian history is a rejection of reason as well.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 5:58PM
He is the Incarnate Word of God. BOTH true God and True Man. Any spirit that denies Jesus come in the Flesh is of the Antichrist. (1 John 4:3)
Divine Reasoning, Divine Word, Divine Logos, wrapped in Flesh on Earth and made available to you. From Heaven, on Earth. Both Heavenly and Earthly, but not worldly.
mames| 5.6.11 @ 3:53PM
logos means WORD not reason although Christ did use reason to an extent, after all man cannot possibly understand the mind of our infinite God. God deigns to use anthropomorphic language to communicate with us but as stated we have our limits; we are the creature he is the Creator.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:02PM
The translation "Word" does not convey the depth of meaning of the original Greek "Logos". Logos is the root of "logy", a very common suffix in English, and conveyed the sense of "mind" and "thought" and "understanding" (and perhaps what we mean by "reason").
mames| 5.7.11 @ 2:40PM
OK, how to put it? Reason is useful but is, especially in spiritual matters ,in a fallen state. Reason is used to do exegesis but God's Word often exceeds our ability to understand. It is supralogical which is to say only understood in the mind of God. Reason is a tool to be used to understand The Word it is not a revelation in itself. Christ is the final revelation from God.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:27PM
"Scripture can speak for itself"
No book "speaks for itself", because no book reads itself. Each individual who reads a book--any book--brings to it a lifetime of experiences, assumptions, preconceptions and traditions of interpretation that consciously or subconsciously shape how he understands the material.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 10:34PM
Stuart does not know God.
If he did he could not say, "no book speaks for itself".
He has not been borne of the Spirit of God yet, and indeed isn't interested.
He holds to his dead cult of Religion which teaches a phony salvation by dead works which isn't the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and rejects what the Words of Jesus actually say~ that Salvation comes by the Grace of God, through Jesus Christ directly~ and NOT through a "church".
He does not know that the Words of God are living and active, Heb. 4:12,
and that the Scripture actually preached the Gospel to Abraham. Gal. 3:8.
He does not even know that every Word of God proves true. Prov. 30:5.
That NO Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation. 2 Pe. 1:20.
If he knew God, and not just had Knowledge about Him, he would not say "no book speaks for itself".
"The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned.
The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one.
"For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Cor. 2:14-16.
While Stuey condemns the enlightened among us, he is blind himself.
He preaches Religion, while Christians preach the living Word of God.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:20AM
If a 2nd Lieutenant with a map is the most dangerous thing in the world, then a silly woman with an internet connection must certainly be in the top ten, if not in second or third place.
Jeremy Stevens| 5.9.11 @ 11:34AM
Oh well said, Stuart . . . who knew Margie types still existed in a world where not only the Bible but scholarly Biblical commentaries are available on line and in bookstores. Guess where she comes from the only guide you need to the Bible are Chick Comics and anti-Catholic tracts printed up by Pastor Sam in his double-wide. Amazing!
mames| 5.7.11 @ 2:54PM
The known objective rules of grammer, even more precise in the ancient languages, can be read in context. Any subjective insights are invalid. Any text can be read and understood in this manner scripture or not. I am aware that many today do not believe in objective truth but they are sincerely wrong; even as you will fall to the ground like a rock if you jump off a 5 story building thinking you will not.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 6:12PM
People read books; books do not read books.
Le Cracquere| 5.6.11 @ 9:25AM
Integrating these three things seems like a highly worthy endeavour; I'm a little surprised that you should want to reject any credit for it. If only Roman Catholicism did this, as opposed to a broader "Christianity," so much the worse for the latter.
And if Christianity can have nothing to do with Greek philosophy or Roman law, then it is indeed far from "catholic"--i.e., far less universal, far smaller and more pinched. The Reformers themselves would have given such nonsense exceedingly short shrift.
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 9:33AM
Your comments seem irrational. Certainly the early church was influenced by Greek thought and Roman law. The Bible comes from the Church. From the Church comes the idea of the universaal brotherhood of man, mass charity to the poor, the University, the Hospital, great philosphy and theology using Greek and Roman methods of reason to explain God's plan for the world. great art often influenced by the ancients. It is certainly the greatest instution for good the world has ever seen. Isalm, 35000 Protestant sects, Communism, National Socialism, Socialism, the French Revolution, and the new neopaganism were founded to destroy and replace the Church. They have not as yet succeeded.
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 9:48AM
I think that the concept still holds if you don't hold to the premise that the "Bible came from the Church."
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:39PM
Hi Ryan: I wouldn't say the entire Bible came from the Church. But the New Testament did. All the various NT books were written by churchmen in the first century. These same churchmen defended the OT scriptures as well. All the NT and OT books were assembled into a canon in the fourth century. Not sure when the term "Bible" first was used for the book of that Canon.
The Canon of Scripture was not attacked significantly until Martin Luther attacked the Epistle of James as "an epistle of straw". He also removed 7 books from the OT (preferring Jewish rules over Christian, I guess)
The relationship between deserves a more subtle discussion than trying to determine which came from which.
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 1:58PM
The whole Bible comes from the Church. The Bible is the putting together of the Old Testament and the New Testament in one book. Of course the Old Testament was put down by inspired Jewish scribes and priests, but the Church put it together in one book to be used in conjuction with each other.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:23PM
Beyond that, the Church insisted that the Old Testament carried equal authority with the New, that the Old Testament informed the New Testament, and the New Testament fulfilled the Old Testament. It did so in the face of heretics like Marcion (who rejected the entire Old Testament and much of the New (except for Luke, Acts and some of the Pauline Epistles), and the Gnostics who insisted that the Father of the New Testament could not be reconciled with the Yahweh of the Old Testament.
I'll reiterate that the Old Testament of the Apostles and the early Church was the Greek Septuagint version, not the Hebrew Masoretic which some people think has precedence.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:47PM
Sorry, but the Old Testament was WRITTEN in Hebrewm, not Greek, Stuart. No Greek translation can take precedence over the Hebrew original, except for some very screwed up theologians.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 10:51PM
Don't try to tell a Jew about the Old Testament, Mr. Tool. Most books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. However, from the time of the exile in Babylon onward, fewer and fewer Jews spoke that language with any fluency. Inspired books continued to be written, but increasingly they were written in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the Near East; the large Jewish community in Egypt also continued writing, increasingly in Greek from the third century BC.
In Judaea and Galilee in the first centuries BC/AD, there was no single canon of Scripture, just as there was no single, normative Judaism. In fact, different sects tended to use different canons, and accepted different books as being "scriptural". We know this not only because of the contemporary writings of eminent Jews like Philo of Alexandria and Flavius Josephus, but also from archaeological discoveries of first century manuscripts, including but not limited to the Dead Sea Scrolls.
From these we know several different Bibles were in circulation, of which the most popular and most common was the Greek Septuagint (LXX), compiled in Alexandria in the second century BC. We have also found Hebrew and Aramaic texts that are very similar to the LXX, as well as Greek translations that are similar to the Masoretic Hebrew text in use today. The Masoretic text, by the way, was compiled over a period of several centuries beginning after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, but not completed until the 4th century AD; the Hebrew Old Testament in use today is thus much younger than the New Testament, which presents a number of problems.
Moreover, it is clear that the early Christian community communicated almost exclusively in Greek. The first century Church historian Papias, who interviewed many who had known Christ and the Apostles, noted that Matthew had written his Gospel in Aramaic, and that other translated theirs from his (I know this runs contrary to the Markan Priority and the Q hypothesis, but then, Papias was there). As the Church began to spread out of Judaea and Syria, into Asia Minor and Egypt, Koine Greek was the predominant language, and the writers of the Gospels, as well as St. Paul and the authors of the other Epistles and the Apocalyse, when they needed to cite Scripture, either because Christ had quoted it, or for apologetic purposes, they cited the LXX.
For the first four hundred years of the Christian era, the LXX was the Old Testament of the Church. As the Church spread westward, where Latin was predominant, a number of Latin translations of the LXX were compiled, of varying degrees of fidelity. In the late 4th-early 5th centuries, St. Jerome, one of the few Western Fathers who knew Hebrew, made a translation from the Hebrew Masoretic text. Now, the Masoretes who began the compilation of the Hebrew Old Testament determined from the beginning that they would not include any books not written entirely or at least predominantly in Hebrew, which thus meant the elimination of books like the four Maccabbees, Ecclesiastes, Wisdom of Ben Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. Such books had been extremely popular among Jews at the time of Christ, but many had strong apocalyptic overtones, and after three failed rebellions against Rome, the Jews were in no mood for apocalyptics. The Masoretic text also took pains to alter or eliminate passages from the Old Testament that had been used by Christian apologists to prove that Jesus was the Messiah.
Jerome believed that the Old Testament should be limited to the Masoretic books, but the Tradition of the Church was fully behind the LXX, so Jerome translated those books into Latin as well, creating the so-called Vulgate Old Testament.
The Eastern Churches, however, continued to use the LXX, with the exception of the Syrian Churches, which used (and still use) an Aramaic version called the Peshetta.
You assertion that "No Greek translation can take precedence over the Hebrew original, except for some very screwed up theologians." is laughably anachronistic and naive. It may be true for present day Jews, but Jewish scholars have led the way in showing just how polyvariant Second Temple Judaism really was, and how many different canons of Scripture were in use. There is no such thing as "the Hebrew original"--there are several different Hebrew variants. The one accepted by Jews and used by Protestants came to prominence only with the rise of rabbinic Judaism. Protestants use it only because Martin Luther, in just one of many whopping historical errors he made in his life, believed that Second Temple Judaism--the Judaism of the time of Christ--was fundamentally indistinguishable from the rabbinic Judaism of the 16th century (with the deletion of Temple worship, of course). It's an error that many historians and theologians repeated until well into the 20th century, when new materials became available, and scholars--including Jewish scholars like Eric Gruen and Geza Vermes, began looking at both old and new material in light of everything known about the period of the Second Temple.
And here, again, endeth the lesson.
RCV| 5.7.11 @ 12:59AM
Wow! Fascinating!
Jack in Wi.| 5.7.11 @ 2:25AM
Indeed Excellent:
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 5:39PM
Stuart, Occam is also Jewish (if my recollection serves). Your post above is excellent.
Jeremy Stevens| 5.9.11 @ 11:36AM
You, sir, are a GEM! Thank you so much!
Occam's Tool| 6.22.11 @ 10:20PM
Stuart, I'm Jewish, as well. Again, I think the Torah in the original Hebrew takes precedence over the Greek translation of the first five books. And I'll take the rabbinical commentary of Maimonides over the church fathers.
In short, there was a book at the time of 70 AD that the rabbinical scholars were studying. Rashi had what he considered the definitive text.
In my experience, Rabbinical studies went underground and separated from church history about what, around 50 AD? It is quite possible, given the massive persecution and destruction of Jewish sources (Consider how Rabbi Akiva, for example, died) that Rashi had access to sources that have been destroyed. They certainly would have been unknown to Christian scholars of his time.
Thanks for the lesson, though. But you did not address Jewish sources in your polemic, and I'm not Margie, sir (although I do respect her). My point is from a present day Jewish perspective, of course. Aren't we stiffnecked? ;)
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 10:13AM
The inspired Word of God was influenced by Greek thought and Roman Law??
Do tell...
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:16PM
Most of the NT was written in Greek, using Greek words, connected with Greek ideas and representing Greek thoughts.
Can we move on now?
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 3:04PM
Yes, it was written in Greek.
Again, so what?
The events described within were NOT in any way influenced by Greek philosophy...Unless you think Christ needed the assist?
Sure, move on...To another straw-man.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:12PM
Your sweeping negations are tedious. "NOT in any way influenced...". It's just silly. Christianity even used Greek Pagan RELIGION in its preaching:
"Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." (Act 17:22 ff)
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 5:42PM
Dr. (More often than not) Right,
From your previous postings it is apparent you know your Bible well. So I am sure I point out something you already know when I mention that St. Paul himself quoted pagan philosophers in his various letters. I would put it more that the early Christian writers used Logic and Philosphy to make the Christian viewpoint apparent to audiences who also would be familiar with that same Greek Logic and Philosphy, which also informed Roman thought (and Law).
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:51AM
Yeah, Jack, pretty good for a bunch of Jewish kids.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 2:40PM
Actually, Israel Firster Tool Job, Jesus, Peter, James & The Guys Were The First Break Away " Jews For Jesus".
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:14PM
Dear Clint:
No, they actually did not think that it required breaking away, at first, Nazi baby murdering asshat.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:18PM
O.T.,
As you might know, and if you don't, Im here to tell you~ the difference between this beast Clint/Tim* and any real Christian, is that we actually love the Jews.
Supersessionism teaches the lie that the (Catholic) church has replaced the state of Israel, (in their minds only), rendering Israel NULL & VOID.
It is a good hideout for beasts like him.
Please remember, Catholicism is NOT Christianity.
As you are witnessing~ they reject Bible believing Christians~ because what they have learned is from outside the teachings of Christ~ it is a cult~ therefore they reject those who reject it.
The "Papacy" used to murder Bible believing Christians for this~ and that spirit is still alive and well, as you can see.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:45PM
Margie,
I know that my wife, you, and Dr. R are MUCH more typical than vermin like Jack and Clint. I disgree with you theologically in many areas, but I know that you want my children and I to prosper and do well, and care for you for that.
Like I said, hey, if I'm wrong, the Steaks are on me, and may I live to see the Moshiach come back and tell me I'm wrong. G-d Bless, dear lady, and bless your husband, too.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:19PM
P.S. They did the same to Jewish people, as well.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:32AM
I would say the decisive break between Church and Synagogue occurred during Bar Kochba's rebellion in 135. Simeon bar Kosiba declared himself to be the Messiah, and with the support of the old and saintly Rabbi Akiba, raised the standard of rebellion against Rome after the Emperor Hadrian (it was rumored) was going to outlaw circumcision (who knew there would be Jews pressing to do the same in our day and age?). Akiba bestowed on bar Kosiba the title bar Kochba (Son of the Star, a Messianic title). Bar Kochba raised an army, coined money and began plans to rebuild the Temple. He even won a victory or two, after which he was feeling his oats.
It was at that time that he required all Jews to recognize him as the Messiah, which of course, the Jewish Christians could not do. The Jerusalem Church, which had been largely Jewish-Christian until that time effectively passes out of history until resurrected in the time of Constantine as a purely Gentile institution.
Bar Kochba's Rebellion was quashed ruthlessly in the classic Roman fashion--much worse than the outcome of the Jewish War of AD66-70. For one thing, this time the population really was decimated; for another, the Jews were barred from entering Jerusalem except once a year on the 9th of Ab, to mourn the destruction of the Temple. Furthermore, to make sure that the Jews would never rise up again, he built a temple to Jupitor on top of the Temple Mount (roughly where the Dome of the Rock now stands). Interestingly, he also built a Temple of Aphrodite on the site of the Church of the Holy Sephulchre, which was known by Christians even then as the site of Christ's burial (a most unlikely site, too, considering that Christ was crucified and buried outside the walls of the city, but by the second century AD, new walls had brought the site inside the city itself). In the fourth century, at the instigation of Constantine's Mother, the Empress Helena Augusta, the Temple of Aphrodite was demolished and the great basilica of the Anastasis (Resurrection) was built on the site. Rebuilt by the Crusaders in the 11th century, it became the Church of the Holy Sephulchre.
Nick| 5.7.11 @ 1:11AM
Mr. Koehl,
" [...] (a most unlikely site, too, considering that Christ was crucified and buried outside the walls of the city [...]."
Is this a typo? Don't you mean that the Church of the Holy Sephulchre is the most likely site?
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 7:55AM
If you were a fourth century Christian looking for the site of Christ's burial, using the Gospels for a guide, you would look for a site outside the walls of Jerusalem. But the site at which they looked and found evidence for the Tomb was, in the fourth century, INSIDE the walls, because, a decade or so after the Crucifixion, King Herod Agrippa built the third wall, which brought the hill of Golgotha and the cemetery in which Jesus was buried inside the walls.
This is evidence that Helena Augusta was relying on an authentic Tradition of the Christians living in and around Jerusalem (or Aelia Capitolina, as it had been named since Hadrian had expelled the Jews in 135). Local Christians could be expected to remember something as important as the place Christ died and was buried. That the Emperor Hadrian chose that site for a temple dedicated to Aphrodite would seem additional confirmation: after Bar Kochba's rebellion, he took pains to desecrate sites sacred to Jews (and to him, Christians must have seemed just another Jewish sect, although by the Jews and Christians were almost totally estranged).
So, my point is the site of the Church of the Anastasis, today known as the Holy Sephulchre, is the most LIKELY site for Christ's tomb because in the fourth century, it was one of the most UNLIKELY sites. We will know more when ongoing archaeological investigations being conducted as part of a restoration of the edicule are completed.
Nick| 5.7.11 @ 8:13PM
Mr. Koehl,
Thanks for the explanation. Forgive my obtuseness, publikly educated.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 5:17AM
Tell that to The Pharisees , Israel Firster Fanatic Nazi Traitor Bastard Tool Job.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 10:53PM
I'm not at all sure what kind of a jackwagon you are, Clint, but I'm making it my business to put morons like you in their place, because whether its you, or Dr. Right, or Marge or any of the rest of you, you're wasting bandwidth and polluting the atmosphere with your juvenile drivel. Got something useful to say, say it. Otherwise, shut the hell up.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 5:22AM
Let's see ya make me "shut the hell up", Pseudo-intellectual Bloviator Stuart.
We have something called "Free Speech" ,here in America & If ya wanna force me to physically defend myself, I'm quite able to deal with you on those terms, as well, Toughie Girl, Stueena
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 7:58AM
With the right comes responsibilities. Those who use their right to free speech frivolously show no respect for it and degrade its value. Moreover, just to be Scriptural, it's what comes out of a man's mouth, not what goes in, that pollutes and corrupts him.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 1:14AM
Just what is Clint's animus against Israel? Is he one of those really nasty Irish Catholics like Pat Buchanan who thinks World War II was just an unfortunate misunderstanding, and that "What Happens in Dachau Stays in Dachau"? I just don't get it.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 5:03AM
The United States has no treaty with Israel and Our National Interests are not Israel's National Interests.
Israel Firster Agendists shouldn't attempt to have The Israel Tail Wag The United States Big Dog.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 7:59AM
Oh, so you are a mindless Buchananite. Thanks. Now we know where we stand.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:18AM
Hey Over-opinionated Pseudo-intellect College teacher Blowhard Greeky Creep, I'm A Registered Republican and A Tea Party Patriot,who never voted for Buchanan.
Now,We know that You're Full of Shit.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 11:29AM
That's a shame. Guys like you give the Tea Party a bad name. One might suspect you are some sort of SEIU plant.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:13PM
Dear Jack, considering that you wish to continue the work of the National Socialists, I'm surprised you blame them.
Petronius| 5.6.11 @ 9:52AM
After speaking the words, "Tu es Petrus," did Christ say, "upon this Rock I will build my personality cult?" There's no reference to a party, p-r firm, or media empire.
Some disgusting characters have sat in the chair of Peter, but who picked them?
For over a century the church has been under assault from within by Marxists who utilize their vocations as cover for acquisition of power and the results are manifest world wide. There are still some truly Holy men and women in Orders. They are not in the upper ranks. It is a dilemma . Those priests who embody Jesus to others just don't have the moxey for running organizations.
Ted| 5.6.11 @ 1:36PM
Releeeeease the hooooounds!!!
Tom near Boston| 5.6.11 @ 10:24PM
Yes, Doctor. You've figured us out. We saw all those early Christians having such a great time of it, that we'd milk it for free do-nothing jobs eating lazyman's lobster down at the friary for thousands of years.
The Church is a human institution and as such is populated by fallen and fallible human beings -- animal in nature but with a divine spark. And in that leaky creaky vessel through the ages has been contained and tranmitted the Way, Truth, and Life. Think any other "demonination" is any different in those respects?
Now let's stop throwing stones at each other and, with Love, show the Dave Williamses (see above) of this world what we really are about, and if they pay attention, lead them to the truth about what they are really all about.
cliff| 5.6.11 @ 11:40PM
Amen, brother. Can you polemics stop thinking about how smart you are for awhile and just love God and love your neighbor.
I do have one question to ask Marge and the gang: why didn't Jesus write the gospels Himself? Why did He teach through actions and not written words, but we are supposed to base our faith and our church on words and not actions?
Alan Brooks| 5.7.11 @ 12:14PM
"Christianity has NOTHING to do with Greek philosophy and Roman Law."
Yes, this is one exaggeration. Hellenistic culture had NOTHING whatsoever to do with Christianity? sheesh, what an ax you are grinding!
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 7:55AM
Additionally, secular publications like The Economist will never praise religious organizations until they abandon their faith and adhere to the secularist message.
Is this a surprise? Is it even newsworthy?
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 5:47PM
Thank you for that comment about the Economist, Dr. (Mostly) Right. That was great, and it gave me a good laugh for the day because it is perfectly true!
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 8:11AM
"In early September of 2006, Pope Benedict XVI gave an address to the faculty at the University of Regensburg in Germany, where he once taught theology. Entitled “Faith, Reason and the University—Memories and Reflections,” his talk became an occasion for strong protests from members of the Muslim community and others. At issue washis reference to a Byzantine emperor’s negative characterization of Muhammad."
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 8:16AM
Is Dr. Reich bashing The Catholic Church newsworthy ?
Hmmmm, Anti-Catholic Assface.?
Jeremiah| 5.6.11 @ 9:56AM
Dr. Right is just silly and arrogant. He obviously believes that the Church of Christ and the apostles, which was Christianity for 1,500 years, got it all wrong until some of his dissident forebears rose a mere 500 years ago. So authentic Christianity did not come into the world with Christ, but whenever whatever church that Dr. Right follows, founded by some mere human in the last 500 years, came to set us straight.
He would also have you believe that Catholics are "un-Biblical," never troubling himself that the New Testament was compiled by authorities of the Catholic Church - which apparently did not notice for over a millenium that the New Testament it wrote was contrary to all it taught. Yeah right.
The reason that the 35,000 Protestant denominations have never overturned the Catholic Church is the simple fact that the New Testament that both Catholics and Protestants consider binding is a Catholic Document. (Yes, Luther did want to remove James and a few other non-Pauline epistles from the Bible, but even his followers could not stand that. I do love it when a Protestant tells me, in ominous tones, of what a sin it is to remove or add any books to the Bible - as a means of condemning us Catholics for the books we "added" to the Old Testament. They never believe me when I tell them they took them out of their Bible 500 years ago. Though once I did say so to a woman who was with her minister - an honest Protestant minister to be sure. When I told her, she looked to him to correct me. He informed her that I was correct. You should have seen the look of horror on her face.)
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 10:29AM
No, Jerry...
You've got it ALL backwards.
I do not believe, as you attempt to imply, that 1,500 years of Catholic "wisdom" was somehow deemed irrelevant in the high middle ages.
That would imply that I recognize the legitimacy of the Roman Catholic Church, and I do not.
First of all, the Roman Catholic Church did NOT exist as such until Constantine "embraced" Christianity, and what he embraced began to morph into Catholicism. So you can lop at least 350 years off of your "1,500".
Secondly, Christianity PREDATES Catholicism; they are NOT the same thing. As predicted in the Gospels and in the Letters of Paul, apostasy began to creep into the Church almost immediately, and they were constantly struggling against it.
Finally, your example of vexing the Protestant woman is unimpressive. Had this Minister been worth his salt, he would have informed you that the admonition against "removing or adding anything to the Books of the Bible" DOES NOT refer to the inclusion of the individual letters themselves, but rather to the words contained WITHIN the letters! And that is exactly what Catholic Doctrine does to justify it's many unscriptural and contradictory positions - they add to the Word of God with "traditions" and "Councils".
NICE TRY! I do so love it when a Catholic tells me, in ominous tones, that the Bible wouldn't exist without them, as if they somehow actually wrote the letters themselves.
And by the way...I'm not a Protestant.
Tim the Enchanter| 5.6.11 @ 10:43AM
Methinks thou art full of crap.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 10:45AM
That's brilliant, and about at the intellectual level I generally expect to receive from Catholic apologists, many of whom are so steeped in ideology that they can't see the forest for the trees.
Mike McLaren| 5.6.11 @ 12:16PM
First, Doctor Right just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean you can't show him respect. By refering to Pope Benedict as "Mr." you portray a lack of Christian charity and show yourself to be a man of little honor.
Secondly, if you are interested in learning true Christian doctrine I suggest you read the writing's of St. Polycarp (69-155AD) who was a first hand student of the apostle John. Then read St Ignatius (35- 110AD) who was ordained Bishop of Antioch by the Apostle John. Then maybe learn about St. Clement who was evangelized by Peter. I could go on, but the point I'm trying to make is if you were to actually learn what these and the rest of the (Catholic) Church Fathers taught and then learn the true teaching of the Catholic Church, not just what you've heard (perhaps read the Catechism of the Catholic Church), you would see that it is the same. You would hear them defend the primacy of the pope, the true pressence in the eucharist, purgatory and all the other doctrine of The one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Doctor Right your words are clever but they're not true.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:09PM
Sorry, but reading the works of Catholic "scholars" to justify the righteousness of Catholic doctrine seems like a silly exercise.
Let me guess?? They support it!
What a shock.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 2:16PM
Catholic scholars like the Apostle John?
Maybe you should read up on anti-Catholic scholars like Arius of Alexandria. Do you know how many Popes were tortured defending the Divinity of Christ?
Mike McLaren| 5.6.11 @ 2:36PM
Like I said, your clever but lacking in truth. I said read the Church fathers who lived in first and second century. By your own words the Church was still on track until the fourth century.
You intentionaly misstated what I wrote....what a shock.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 3:02PM
No I didn't.
None of the writings of the Apostles supports the structure and Doctrines that make-up the Catholic Church.
That's none. As in Zip. Zero. Nada.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:15PM
More sweeping negations. Still silly. Still sad.
Jeremiah| 5.6.11 @ 10:55AM
Ah yes, Dr. Right, I know very well that some Protestants had to make up their very own version of history, complete with some actual details, but with little twists to deceive the unwary. I started as a fundamentalist. Quite apart from the theological contradictions inherent, I was a history major...so the little fantasies sprinkled with a light dose of fact that you and yours peddle just wouldn't fly, either.
As for your not being a Protestant, if you are a Christian and are neither Orthodox nor Catholic, you are Protestant. I always chuckle at supposed "non-denominational" Christian Churches. Among Protestants, the denomination simply indicates your set of beliefs. If you are non-denominational, it means you don't believe in anything particularly. So non-denominational churches are just denominations that don't have a name - because they do believe something.
I'm glad you know something about Constantine. I wish you knew enough about him and the Church to know a little real history. But if you did it would, as it did with me, puncture the fantasy history you have constructed to support what you have chosen to believe. You should oppose Benedict, for not much faith or much reason involved in what you say - and if you let too much of the light of either in, it must cause the pillars you have erected around yourself to come tumbling down. And isn't it nice to know that if, among your congregation of Catholic baiters, some should disagree with you, they don't have to cease to hate Catholics....they can just form their own church and claim that they, alone, have it right and understand the Bible - and the New Testament that Catholics wrote. Then you will have 35,001 Protestant denominations as you all demonstrate your authenticity by living Christ's command that there be no divisions - et unum sunt.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:18PM
The Church I attend does not consist of "Catholic baiters".
Do we agree with Catholic doctrine? Absolutely not.
But let's not play games. Catholics do not recognize the legitimacy of non-Catholic Christians vis-a-vis doctrine, either...And since I was raised as a Catholic, I know of what I speak.
I could not care less how many Protestant denominations there are out there, as some of them are even more "out there" than Catholicism in terms of doctrine and practices. Since I'm not a Protestant, this is irrelevant to me.
And finally, you're going to have to abandon the puerile idea that those who criticize Catholicism are bigots. That's very Sharpton-esque, and quite absurd. It basically means you can't really defend your position, so you're going to attack the messenger.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:52PM
Not "Doctor" Right. Rather, "Pope Right I".
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 2:19PM
Further, "Do we agree with Catholic doctrine? Absolutely not."
You don't agree with the Divinity of Christ? After Christianity was legalized, that is the first doctrine a Pope died for.
Are you a "Jehovah's Witness"?
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 3:00PM
What a silly assertion.
Hate to tell you, but there's literally hundreds of millions of people who
a) Believe in the divinity of Christ, but
b) Reject Catholicism
Hate to tell you, but Christianity does NOT equal Catholicism.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:20PM
I know that. But the most staunch haters of the Catholic church also reject the Divinity of Christ.
So, you, do you accept or reject the Divinity of Christ? Why won't you answer the question?
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 1:16AM
"The Church I attend does not consist of "Catholic baiters"
Master baiters, then, by any chance?
Sorry, could not resist--and he's such a great straight man.
Jeremiah| 5.6.11 @ 10:58AM
Oh, and Dr. Right, I am traveling so won't be able to answer you for much of the day. Just saying so you don't deceive yourself that you have scared me off as you continue with all your sound and fury.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:19PM
Whatever. I'm not exactly holding my breath waiting for your insight.
Jeremiah| 5.6.11 @ 10:58AM
Oh, and Dr. Right, I am traveling so won't be able to answer you for much of the day. Just saying so you don't deceive yourself that you have scared me off as you continue with all your sound and fury.
W| 5.6.11 @ 11:16AM
You can't help yourself, dr.r. You are obsessed with Catholics.
you said you were a catholic for years, what happened to cause such bigotry and obsession? you constantly refer to irish priests, did your mommy have an affair with one? you pretend knowledge by stating what you believe are facts, it is all your interpretation. but what caused you to become an obsessed bigot? it is one thing to have a rational dialogue, but you are not rational. you have to attempt to mock or ridicule, because you recognize the weakness and bigotry of you arguments. if you had legitimate arguments you would not lower yourself to mockery and ridicule. i admit i do it to you, make fun of you, should not do it, but given the level of your statements, that may be the only way to answer you that you understand. you bigotry is more at home with the anti-religion nuts on the lefty sites.
tell us what you think about the protestants, jews, hindus, muslims, etc. i assume any religion that does not accept your understanding of the bible is false, correct? what is your religon, the church of dr. right?
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:25PM
"Bigotry"?
It's HILARIOUS that Catholics cannot stand criticism of their faith without resorting to the pathetic cries of "bigotry". They can't really defend their positions, but they sure know "bigotry" when they see it?
No, my religion is NOT "the Church of Dr. Right"; that's absurd, and you know it.
And no, I personally do not recognize the legitimacy of Hinduism, Islam, etc. Judaism WAS the one, true faith prior to the coming of Christ, but it's purpose was fulfilled at the resurrection, and it is no longer valid (and if you consider yourself any kind of Christian, but don't understand this, then you REALLY need to get back to the basics of your faith).
You don't think my points are legitimate? Whatever. Your choice. But please...if you're going to say this, have some valid counterpoints.
W| 5.6.11 @ 3:25PM
be clear, jews, catholics, hindus, muslims,etc. do not practice a valid religion. and you are not a "protestant." what is your religion, how many members, is there a brick and mortar church? details.
when someone is a bigot, though, there is no nice way to say it. you are an intolerant bigot,
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:33PM
I understand your point, Dr. Right, and I don't hold it against you. It is a mainstream Protestant position. Like Ann Coulter, who is another friend of Israel.
To counter your assertion, I simply must say: "The Children of Israel Live." Despite all the best efforts of the Romans (gone), Venetians (gone), Byzantines (gone), Ottomans (gone), Persians (gone), Babylonians (gone), Greek Syrians (gone), Spanish (dying), Germans (dying), Japanese (dying), Italians (dying), shariaists (soon to be gone) , Norweigians (dying), Swedish (dying), Icelanders (dying), Irish (dying), French (dying), Ugandans (AIDS ridden and dying), Palestinians (living crappy existences because they won't make peace), Egyptians (poverty ridden and morally corrupt because their peace is not real), and a HOST of other players, Am Yisroel Chai.
Now, some may call me naive and stupid, but I think that's a G-d given miracle. Oh, and we also win Nobels all out of proportion, too, to our population.
My existence despite all the vermin like Clint and Jack that want to see me dead is my reason for faith. And I know, that despite your differences in theology, you and Margie want me alive, too, and you're not alone in YOUR faith.
Thus, the incredible power of my Faith.
RCV| 5.6.11 @ 10:32PM
Beautifully put, Ocaam.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 1:51PM
DR: What Constantine embraced morphed into the Eastern Empire and the Orthodox Church, both centered at his city Constantinople. The church you hate so much is the Catholic church, centered at Rome where Peter is buried. Not sure if you're capable of receiving historical truths, but the final split between east and western empires occurred in 800 AD when the Pope crowned Charlemagne emperor of the west (quite an insult to the eastern emperor). Why did the pope do this? Because he perceived, largely due to a bad translation of the Greek into Latin, that Leo the Isaurian had falled into Iconodulism (after centuries of eastern Iconoclasm). Unfortunately the east and west churches also split about 250 years later. Please pray for wisdom, and for the unity of the church.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:14PM
"Not sure if you're capable of receiving historical truths, but the final split between east and western empires occurred in 800 AD when the Pope crowned Charlemagne emperor of the west (quite an insult to the eastern emperor)."
It might have started then, but the separation took another four centuries to solidify. Even on the secular side, after Charlemagne, there were several occasions on which it appeared that dynastic marriages would result in a reunification of the Roman Empire with the Empire of the Romans.
The real reason why Pope Leo crowned Charlemagne were more prosaic: traditionally, the Byzantines had been the protectors of the Bishops of Rome (whose elections in fact had to be ratified by the Emperor in Constantinople). However, the Papal States were under threat from the Lombards at a time when the Byzantines were unable to come to the rescue. The Carolingian Franks were more or less invited into North Italy, and crowning Charlemagne as "Emperor of the Romans" effectively sealed the deal.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:25PM
"First of all, the Roman Catholic Church did NOT exist as such until Constantine "embraced" Christianity, and what he embraced began to morph into Catholicism. So you can lop at least 350 years off of your "1,500"."
Wrong.
"Secondly, Christianity PREDATES Catholicism; they are NOT the same thing. As predicted in the Gospels and in the Letters of Paul, apostasy began to creep into the Church almost immediately, and they were constantly struggling against it."
Wrong again.
"Finally, your example of vexing the Protestant woman is unimpressive. Had this Minister been worth his salt, he would have informed you that the admonition against "removing or adding anything to the Books of the Bible" DOES NOT refer to the inclusion of the individual letters themselves, but rather to the words contained WITHIN the letters! And that is exactly what Catholic Doctrine does to justify it's many unscriptural and contradictory positions - they add to the Word of God with "traditions" and "Councils"."
Trifecta!
Rich D| 5.6.11 @ 1:27PM
35,000 now? The number keeps getting higher. Perhaps you could give a source for this bogus figure ro define what you mean by it.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:09PM
"Dr. Right is just silly and arrogant."
That's just unfair to silly and arrogant people, whose boots Dr. Right is not fit to lick.
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 5:50PM
Dr. (Mostly) Right is neither silly nor arrogant. He is much mistaken about the Catholic Church, that is true.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 10:16AM
Clinton:
Your constant references to "ass" are troubling...Are you concealing a deep-seated to other men's posteriors? Do you need someone to talk to?
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:55AM
Doctor Right:
it is tempting to poke at Clint. I do it all the time. I wish to admit that I am wrong to pick on him. As he is a crossbreed between a neurosyphilitic camel and a leprous armadillo, the brain capacity is very small, helped not at all by his "smooth sulcus" syndrome. It's wrong to pick on cripples.
Don't do it man; he's not worth it. By the way, for us ignorant Jewish guys, a reading list on Church history would be useful. Thanks.
(P.S. I love your stuff)
PJ| 5.6.11 @ 12:07PM
DK's The Story of Christianity: A Celebration of 2000 Years of Faith, by Collins & Price (not printed anymore but can easily get used copies.)
Saints & Sinners: A History of the Popes, by Duffy (title says it all, includes all the warts.)
These 2 books are some of the history books that I used in a graduate level, introductory Church history course I was enrolled in. Any briefly described theology mentioned in the books is needed to understand the events that occurred around it.
W| 5.6.11 @ 1:23PM
Paul Johnson's History of Christianity, and History of Jesus
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 2:10PM
Warren H Carrol, the "of Christendom" series.
They are extremely readable, and he keeps you updated on when various important figures are being born or dying. So you have a fluid feel for the real continuity of the church.
My favorite was "The Building of Christendom", from Nicea to about 1100 AD (especially the contrast of the Arian persecutions vs the Roman). But I thought he was too harsh on Photius of Constantinople, who after all died in union with the church.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:28PM
I'd avoid Warren Carrol like the plague. His history is tendentious, his outlook bigoted, his theology definitely preconciliar and barely consistent with that of the Church of Rome.
And I say this as a Greek Catholic (just one of the reasons I loathe Warren Carrol, I suppose).
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:42PM
I already mentioned that he was too hard on Photius. His pro-Catholic bias is apparent, but I like that because I prefer it over posturing (or being uncaring and boring). In his more recent histories, his pro-American bias is apparent too. I wouldn't avoid him, certainly not like the plague.
He is refreshing compared to some of the quislings and naysayers out there.
But I also have 2 copies of D B Hart's illustrated history.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:32PM
O.T.:
I sincerely hope that you are not offended by a post of mine prior to this one where I am asked about the legitimacy of other faiths. I have the deepest respect for Judaism, but as a Christian who believes that Christ was the Messiah foretold of in the books of the Old Testament, I won't equivocate.
As far as a reading list is concerned...Wow. I'm not even sure where to start. The history of the catholic Church is so intertwined with the political history of Europe that it's a daunting task.
But I think that's where the story ultimately begins and ends. Since it's inception, the Catholic Church has been primarily a political organization that surrounds itself with the trappings of Christianity to maintain it's grip on the populace. Anyone who denies this is either a) a liar, b) ignorant, or c) willfully deceitful.
A thorough reading of the New Testament will reveal how far Catholic Doctrine has strayed from Christian teaching. It's not only that Catholics do things that weren't done in antiquity; they do things that were specifically warned AGAINST doing, and when confronted with these facts, their knee-jerk reaction is to quote...Catholic Doctrine!
It's a long, sordid tale.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 2:13PM
D.R. wrote: "The history of the catholic Church is so intertwined with the political history of Europe.."
That's a more fair statement than you realize. It's also true that the history of the Messiah Jesus was intertwined with the political history of Israel and Rome. If you reject the Church, you reject Jesus. I'm sure you don't want to do that.
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 2:44PM
Your statement, "If you reject the Church, you reject Jesus." is patently wrong, if you are referring to the Catholic Church.
Every requirement for salvation in scripture has to do with Christ's redemptive work on the Cross on my behalf. My fellowship with other believers is a byproduct when I am changed by Christ.
David T| 5.6.11 @ 4:14PM
But you can't have Jesus without his body, the church. "Me and Jesus" doesn't cut it. We can argue about who and what make up the "church," but the Bible is clear that God's covenant is with His people, the church.
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 4:57PM
That I can agree with, as long as by "the church" we're talking, as you said, the general body of believers, Protestant and Catholic
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:27PM
Let's just say "the church that Jesus recognizes as his church".
My point, Ryan, was that rejecting the church because of its political entanglements would also lead one to reject Jesus himself, for the same reason. Jesus embraced the church, and so do I, even when it's embarrassing and a cross and a scandal. Not so for loner D.R.
Rich D| 5.6.11 @ 1:35PM
Occam's Tool, may I suggest "The Story of Christianit" Volumes 1 and 2 by Justo L. González? They are thorough, current, and used as texts in seminaries.
Rich D| 5.6.11 @ 1:37PM
Oops - lost the terminal "y" when adding the closing quote. Sorry.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:41PM
Dr. Right:
I'm a graduate of TCU. A Jewish one. I am aware of your belief that I am religiously wrong. I am also aware that you support the survival of the Jewish people, and will be perfectly willing to cough up the cash for the Steak Dinner if the Meshiach arrives and I'm wrong. Knowing you, I'd imagine you'd do the same (Judaism does NOT believe that non-Jews must believe with them for salvation) if shoe is on other foot. And, you know, I don't think either of us is going to be that lucky in this lifetime.
You see, the way I evaluate antisemitism is very simple: is the person I'm dealing with interested in keeping me and my kids alive, or getting them killed. You are the former, whereas Clint is the latter. I had a lot of evangelical girlfriends in college. I evaluate theological arguments very differently from some Jews. I believe that Protestant Evangelicals are, generally speaking, the best friends a Jew has for survival outside of the US military and the IDF. You are interested in my unforced conversion, and other than that, want the best for me and my kids.
In addition, I learn from you.
People like Clint I would not trust around my kids. Honestly, theology disagreements are distinctly second fiddle when you're worried about not being killed by maniacs like Clint and his terrorist friends. Besides, I learn something.
From what I've read, we don't disagree on the following: that Sharia advocates are a deadly threat to the West, that we're in deep trouble, and that Obama is an incompetent yammerhead financially and foreign policy wise. Unlike Clint, your views are eloquent and coherent, and decent. (I do apologize for ragging on Clint, but he's horribly annoying.) In addition, I love history, and you seem to be an expert on an area I have not studied well outside of my Biblical Literature and Life Class at good ol' Froggie High.
Incidentally, to the other folks, thanks for all of the suggestions on reading. ALMOST every TAS blogger I've talked with has been a cultured lady or gentleman with an interesting range of knowledge, and I appreciate it.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:39AM
"In addition, I learn from you."
Perhaps in the same way that young Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington learned from the disastrous 1794 Flanders campaign"
"I learned what NOT to do, and that is always something".
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 4:50AM
You're A Slandering Liar Neo-Chickenhawk Israel Firster Fanatic Coward Tool Job.
The United States Military shouldn't be used by Israel Firster Traitor Bastards, like You Tool Job, to kill other Middle East Sand Monkeys for Israel's or Any Other ME Country's National Interests.
It's about America First, Israel Firster Traitor bastard, Tool Job.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 11:33AM
When you froth, you are almost as funny as Marge. And neither of you has much talent when it comes to invective.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:19PM
Thanks!
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:21AM
You're Welcome, Goat Humper Tool Job.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 2:03PM
Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job gets poked by His Goat, "Billy" all the time.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:20PM
Dear Clint:
your 2:03 PM blog was incoherent, even for you. Invert.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 4:51AM
Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job,Your Billy Goat is incoherent from you poking him.
Mimi| 5.6.11 @ 2:10PM
DEAR O, Dr. Right is one good, interesting conservative poster here on TAS. Always with something of insight and I enjoy his wriying.
Son of a GUN stop the nonsense and arguing on 'RELGION" and stick to OBAMA!
I a born CATHOLIC know the church had its corruption especially with that "SELLING" of indulgences ....but throughout the 2011 years of its existence from within and out, its good and bad it has survived. The devotion to Mary,...The TRUE presence of the Eucharist the churches amazing "GOOD WORKS" is alive and well. Its defense of "LIFE"...its steadfast faith and love of Jesus Christ....as a whole you have to admit its followers are good people...human , YES but GOOD.
Mimi| 5.6.11 @ 2:12PM
SPELL CHECK= wriying= WRITING
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:30PM
Mimi: this article was about Pope Benedict.
But here's a statement about Obama: Getting some self-called Christians here to confess the Divinity of Christ is harder than getting Birth Certificates out of Obama.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 3:41PM
Apparently, They're Troubling To You, Fixated Pavlovian Drooling Serial Anti-Catholic, Dr. Reich Because You're Such A World Class Asshole.
Now, Put Some Hair Around It & Get .........
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:30PM
Clint, for Pete's sake (literally), if you really are a Catholic, please write with charity or not at all. When you're angry, just write "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do".
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 6:38AM
Yes Frisbee.
Let Us Pray.
" Forgive those rotten Sons of Bitches Father, They are Assholes, who know not what they do".
I was A Badly Behaved Alter Boy too.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 10:57AM
I would make no "Nazi" references, "sandmonkey" boy.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 2:11PM
Uh Oh !
Sensitive Victim Israel Firster Fixated Fanatic Nazi, Tool Job is gettin' all PMS'y .
Put some hair around it & get.......
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 2:56PM
Clint's preferred method of arguing, if his opponent is a male, is to make lots of references to male genitalia and men's buttocks.
You may be happier as an Episcopalian, Clinton. Jim McGreevy is!
Adolf From Berlin| 5.6.11 @ 3:19PM
Apparently, Dr.Reich doesn't understand the gender reference of "put hair around it".
Aaaand , since Dr.Reich is obviously a Pussy, I guess I can't use male genitalia & men's buttocks against Her.
Perch Sweetie.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 3:28PM
Uh Oh !
Now, Look What You've Done, Dr. Reich.
You Even Got Adolf From Berlin Mad At You.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:18PM
Dr. Right,
I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that about C.
Al Adab| 5.6.11 @ 11:39AM
Whatever else might be said, and this debate is fascinating, Ratzinger is one of the foremost theologians of our time. He is insightful and has a deep understanding of the relation of Christianity (however defined) to old testament law and prophets. There is much to learn from this man. No, I am not Roman Catholic.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 1:53PM
Al Adab,
You are sadly so wrong.
Did you know that this "pope" believes in something called secessionism
http://www.tenc.net/papalbull.htm
And here's a quote from this phony man who claims to be, what do they call it, "the Vicar of Christ"?
"“Cardinal” Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology (1982), p. 359: “Granted, with regard to the ultimate questions of who God is or what good is, we can never achieve the degree of certainty we can achieve in the realm of mathematics and technology. But when all knowledge that does not take the form of technical knowledge is declared to be nonknowledge, then we are cut off from the truth. We cannot, for instance, decide whether what Jesus said is true but can only dispute whether or not he said it. But that is ultimately an idle question.”
This quote makes sense only if spoken by a man who does not know God, and is bereft of His Spirit.
Al Adab| 5.6.11 @ 2:01PM
Hi Margie,
I though I'd hear from you. We two belong to the greater body of believers, ie The Church. While I enjoy Ratzingers' theology, neither he nor any other individual is the sole arbiter of Christian belief or His Truth.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:18PM
Well, AlAdab,
Jesus Christ is the sole Arbiter, and true Christians preach His Gospel, and no other.
The Pope preaches another Gospel, not that of Jesus Christ.
False teachings have no place in Christianity, and Catholicism is NOT Christianity.
Here is just a partial list:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
God warns us of what will happen to those who add to the Word of God Himself things that He never said or taught, and He never taught these abominations. Neither did the Apostles.
"I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the Tree of Life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen." Rev. 22:18-21.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:33PM
Al Adab: sorry to break it to you, but Margie is not a believer. She is a follower of Arius of Alexandria.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:06PM
OK now I will say it~ YOU ARE SCUM.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 2:21PM
Come on, Fris: Arius had much higher standards than that, and would have dismissed Marge from his merry band of followers the first time she opened her mouth in his presence.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:33PM
Sorry the link was broken, Trying again:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/
Roman Catholicism/catholic_heresies-a_list.htm
David T| 5.6.11 @ 3:17PM
Margie--The Pope is merely saying that the search for scientific certainty of God is a fruitless exercise. God is not to be found in a test tube or in a mathematical formula, despite the claims of the materialists. The creation displays God's greatness, but He transcends the physical.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:42AM
Your proof text from Ratzinger only confirms my deductions about your reading comprehension ability. In fact, the passage you quote says precisely the opposite of what you thought it said.
Feel free to rant all you want, but those of us who actually can read all saw it for ourselves. Stick to picture books next time.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:10PM
Correction: it's called supersecession.
"Supersessionism, then, in the context of Israel and the church, is the view that the New Testament church is the new and/or true Israel that has forever superseded the nation Israel as the people of God. The result is that the church has become the sole inheritor of God’s covenant blessings originally promised to national Israel in the Old Testament. This rules out a future restoration of the nation Israel with a unique identity, role and purpose that is distinct in any way from the Christian church."
~That's a definition of it.
This is what this false and unbiblical Religion believes, including this "pope".
It is also VERY interesting that the way I found out about it, is by AmSpec's resident filthy anti-Christian and anti-semite, Clint/Tim*.
Several months ago he actually posted some quotations on Ratzinger, and this supersecession, (also known as Replacement Theology).
It's why Clint/Tim* finds such a cozy home in the Catholic "church".
Hey Clint/Tim*~
Why don't you share those quotes with us again, lest I go and find them for you?
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 2:17PM
Surprise !
There's Another Nazi Fanatic, Apocalyptic Crank Lady Victor-Margie.
Did You See Israel Firster Tool Job's New Boyfriend, Billy?
He Got A Beard.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:20PM
Haughty Catholics cannot use reason and logic, they have none.
All they have is personal attacks and insults while defending their cult.
What about the actual CONTENT of what I said, though?
It matters not a whit to these apostates.
Adolf From Berlin| 5.6.11 @ 2:30PM
This meeting of " Catholic's Ain't Us" will now come to order.
Dr. Reich has chosen Margie from Munich to deliver the next rant.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 3:15PM
I think Doctor Right may be a Jehovah's Witness. I think Margie believe in the Divinity of Christ though.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Margie and DR: what about it? Do you accept the Divinity of Christ? Do you accept the "God from God, Light from Light, True God from true God, Begotten not made" doctrine?
You're so vehement against the Catholic church. Is the Divinity of Christ one of the doctrines of that you hate?
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 4:20PM
Margie: there will never be a restoaration of what you call Israel. We are all God's chosen now. There are no Jews or Gentiles. We are all one in Jesus Christ. Do you really think that Israel, founded by Communists and Atheists is what God wants for this world? Do you really think that God wants the rest of us to be ruled by this gang of squabbling hatefull sects forever?
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:16PM
Dear Jack:
Bibi Netanyahu is a political Conservative and a free marketeer. His brother had more decency and courage in a used nail clipping of his than you have in your entire body, mind, and soul. Nazi filth.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:52PM
Jack is another one who rejects what the Scripture says.
As it is written:
"Lest you be wise in your own conceits, I want you to understand this mystery, brethren: a hardening has come upon part of Israel, until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved; as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";
"and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."
As regards the gospel they are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers.
For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable." Rom. 11:25-29.
Amen. Praise God.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:44PM
Margie,
you are wonderful, and appreciated. You can always tell the quality of a person by the nature of their enemies, I always say.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:05PM
Look at that, a man who knows not the Lord Jesus (yet), showing love for the Christian.
What a testimony against you guys.
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 5:56PM
"Haughty Catholics cannot use reason and logic, they have none."
Really? Tell that to St. Augustine, St. Albert the Great, and St. Thomas Aquinas.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:40PM
Clint: does mommy ever let you out of the basement?
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:45AM
You are aware, Clint, that His Holiness the Pope frowns upon the kind of antisemitic drivel you spout on a fairly regular basis. And as someone who was a Jew before baptism, I don't much like it, either. It's stupid, and it makes Catholics look like their Jew-hating stereotype.
And, oh, even though I am a Melkite Greek Catholic, and thus a member of a so-called Arab Church, I heartily support the State of Israel in its struggle against the Palestinians. Chew on that one for a while.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 5:09AM
You're A Slandering Liar, Pseudo-intellectual Collegiate Bloviator Stuart.
I don't criticize Judaism, I criticize Israel Firster Agendists .
A True Academic would acknowledge the difference.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 8:03AM
From where I'm standing, I just see another garden variety anti-Semite. And a pretty pathetic one at that.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:25AM
You're A Slandering Liar Greeky Creep.
From where I stand You're another Over-opinionated College Teacher Blowhard & A Slandering Liar, attempting to Play The Anti-Semite Card.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 6:18PM
Maybe you just suffer from Tourette's Syndrome.
Ryan| 5.6.11 @ 2:51PM
Are Jewish people saved by grace or works? Are they saved through Christ?
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:14PM
Neither. Jews do not have an established concept of an afterlife. It is acceptable, and sufficient, to be G-d's servant on Earth. Repeat, there is no Doctrinal conception of an afterlife in Judaism.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:50AM
"Neither. Jews do not have an established concept of an afterlife."
I'm rather surprised to hear a Jew say this. I have relatives in the orthodox, conservative and reform camps, and never have I heard anything from any of them that substantiates your claim.
Unless, of course, you are the last surviving Sadducee?
Makes me suspect your Jewish bona fides, Mr. Tool. Just when was your bar Mitzvah?
RCV| 5.7.11 @ 4:49PM
Ocaam: on Judaism and afterlife, I think you are correct only in the limied sense of an established doctrinal conception. But Hillel expressly believed in an afterlife that pious Jews would share in, and there is certainly much commenrary in the Talmud on the nature of Heaven and Hell.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:47AM
All who are saved are saved through Christ, being mystically connected to his Church. We are saved neither by faith nor by works, but by grace, which informs faith and inspires works.
That was easy, wasn't it?
David T| 5.6.11 @ 3:32PM
Margie--Correction to your correction: The word is "supersessionism," the doctrine that the New Covenant of Jesus Christ superseded the Old (Sinaitic) Covenant of Moses, i.e., the NT Church replaced the OT nation of Israel as the people of God. It is now God’s revealed will for Jews, as well as all Gentiles, to enter into the New Covenant by means of baptism and faith in Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah.
This is what your Bible teaches, Margie.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 5:13PM
Fundamentalist right-wing American Christians, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, do still believe in supercession.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:50AM
Yeah, but they don't count for much.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 6:32AM
Then again, their opinion probably counts a lot more than your opinion counts, Stuart.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 8:04AM
Not really. My opinions have the backing of the single largest Christian community on the face of the earth. What's Pat Robertson as compared to that?
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:11AM
Their opinion is the same as Pope Benedict XVI.
"While acting as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Pope Benedict XVI wrote: “God, according to the Prophet, will replace the broken Sinai covenant with a New Covenant that cannot be broken . . . . The conditional covenant, which depended on man’s faithful observance of the Law, is replaced by the unconditional covenant in which God binds himself irrevocably.”
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:30PM
"This is what this false and unbiblical Religion believes, including this "pope"."
Actually, the Catholic Church has explicitly and deliberately repudiated anything that even hints of supercessionism. The New Testament fulfills, it does not supersede the Old Testament.
But why should Marge look up what the Catholic Church teaches, when it is so much easier just to pretend to know what the Catholic Church teaches?
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:46PM
I'm not going to argue with you, Stuart, except to note that CLINT believes in supercession. I can dig up one of his more coherent quotes on his beliefs, if you can stand it.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:52AM
Clint strikes me as a particularly virulent kind of Catholic Traditionalist, one not particularly happy with developments since Vatican II. As I said to him, he has the whiff of a sedevacantist about him (that means he probably doesn't think there has been a "real" Pope since Pius XII).
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 5:32AM
Stuart strikes me as a Non-Roman Catholic pseudo-intellectual elitist college teacher dude, who thinks he can lecture & bore We, The Great Unwashed, just like he lectures & bores the college kids.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 8:07AM
I will admit to not being a ROMAN Catholic. I chose to join the Other Lung, the one with the pretty Mass and the graven images.
I will also admit you should bathe more often.
On the other hand, college kids find my lectures fascinating. Maybe because their cognitive skills are slightly more advanced than yours?
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:30AM
I'll admit that You have Breath of Ass.
On the other hand, college kids are forced to listen to your pseudo-intellectual blatherings.
Maybe Your cognitive skills are slightly less advanced than both theirs & mine, Greeky Creep.
RCV| 5.7.11 @ 4:52PM
Ocaam, please don't ever confuse Clint's views on anything with actual Catholic theology.
David T| 5.6.11 @ 7:51PM
Supersessionism refers to the traditional Christian belief that the covenant between God and Moses at Mt. Sinai has been replaced by the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has never affirmed that the Sinaitic Covenant remains valid. And, contrary to popular belief, Vatican II's Nostra Aetate nowhere says or even implies that this is the case. What has not been revoked, and never will be, is the overarching Abrahamic Covenant.
David T| 5.6.11 @ 8:05PM
Supersessionism is NOT the false teaching that the New Testament superseded the Old Testament. That is Marcionism.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:02PM
Stuey's a blatant liar, just like his phony Religion teaches him to be.
I am the ONLY one who continually posts references to what I say.
Especially from the Scriptures, proving the false doctrine of this cult.
Stuey and his pals the Catholics bear false witness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and of Christians who believe the Word of God and REJECT the apostate Religion.
He knows it too, but his conscience is seared.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:34PM
Marge is a silly person, not worth the effort of answering in a serious manner. I do get tired of her very limited range of invective, though: everyone of whom she disapproves is "haughty", a liar, a "blatant liar", whose religion is "phony" and "apostate". Apparently, just as she proves there is no such thing as an original heresy, she also proves that heretics have very limited imagination and rhetorical flare.
Yes, Marge, I am mocking you. Buzz Lightyear has more self-awareness than you do.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:46PM
That's OK~ I know Whom I serve.
The LORD Jesus Christ will be the Judge.
You are behaving like your fathers before you~ the heretical Papacy that hated and mocked with scorn the Bible believing Christians, then tortured them and killed them.
Praise God for Jesus who loves me and died for me, even in my own place for my own sins.
"Who rises up for me against the wicked? Who stands up for me against evildoers?
If the LORD had not been my help, my soul would soon have dwelt in the land of silence.
When I thought, "My foot slips," Thy steadfast love, O LORD, held me up.
When the cares of my heart are many, Thy consolations cheer my soul.
Can wicked rulers be allied with Thee, who frame mischief by statute?
They band together against the life of the righteous, and condemn the innocent to death.
But the LORD has become my stronghold, and my God the Rock of my refuge.
He will bring back on them their iniquity and wipe them out for their wickedness; the LORD our God will wipe them out." Ps. 94:16-23.
Praise His Name.
JP| 5.6.11 @ 12:23PM
To read the Early Church Fathers one cannot ignore the influence of Roman, Greek philosophy and Hebrew theoology. From St Paul and Peter, to Ireanus, Polycarp, and St Augustine, one can see the classical influences.
By influence, we don't mean Pagan ideas, but scientific and rational methodology. This is especially important when reading St Thomas Aquainis. He studied the methodolgy of Aristotle. His Suma is a testament of both Catholic and ancient Greek methodolgy. From St Thomas flowed ideas such as the Universal Rights of Man, Natural Law, Justice, and metaphysics.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 1:55PM
Who cares about your early church fathers?
These men were apostates and liars.
The true early church fathers were the Apsotles. The teaches of the early church fathers that Catholicism refers to came after the Apostles, and CREATED their own doctrines that are in direct REBELLION toward God.
JP| 5.6.11 @ 2:05PM
Welcome back Marge.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:21PM
JP~
Another one who will not deal a whit with the actual TRUTH that I posted.
JP| 5.6.11 @ 2:35PM
You wouldn't be the same Marge from PeeWee Herman's Great Adventure-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Pdlxd_rro
I will tell everyone Large Marge sent me!
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 2:54PM
Again, this is about the level of intellectual discourse you get when you argue with Catholics.
Either this, or the other extreme, as offered by folks like "Stuart Kohl"...pompous, long-winded diatribes filled with over-sized words meant to detract the reader from the fact that the person writing it hasn't the faintest idea about what they're posting.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 3:18PM
attack attack attack - it gets pretty tiring DR.
So, tell us what YOU believe. Is Jesus Christ God, the 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity? You dispute so much. Do you dispute THIS?
Nick| 5.6.11 @ 5:52PM
"[...] pompous, long-winded diatribes filled with over-sized words meant to detract the reader [...]."
- Doctor Wrong, a.k.a. Pope Bigot I
Yeah....words don't seem to be a friend of yours, do they? I think the word you were looking for was distract, right genius? Ha-ha!
Al Adab| 5.6.11 @ 2:23PM
Paul, Gal. 3:28.
Mike McLaren| 5.6.11 @ 2:53PM
"Who cares about the early church fathers?" WHOW...These are only the men who learned first hand, let me repeat that...FIRST HAND from the Apostles themselves! Some were actually ordained bishops by the Apostle John.
How do we learn Christianity if not from the fathers? I'm sure you'll probably say from the bible, but there was no bible for the first couple hundred years.
Margie, you're kind of like the poker player who when they realize they have the loosing hand decides to kick over the table.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:58PM
You obviously know nothing.
Let me ask this: have you ever actually READ the writings of those who came after the Apostles?
Do you even care about the false teachings that entered in because of them?
The early church fathers were the Apostles themselves.
God warned us not to listen to anyone who came after promoting teachings that were not in accordance with the Scriptures.
Who do you actually serve?
God, or the Devil?
If you choose to listen to false (unbiblical) teachings, you aren't serving God, but His enemy.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 3:29PM
I've read some of them. Like the letters of Clement and Polycarp and Ignatius. What "false teaching" are you talking about?
Jesus said "Who hears you hears me", and "As the father sent me, so I am sending you". If you don't accept those men, then you don't accept him.
Do you accept the Apostleship of Matthias? Why? He wasn't sent by Jesus.
Do you accept the Divinity of Christ? The Trinity, Father Son and Holy Spirit? Is that what you are calling "false teaching"?
Nick| 5.6.11 @ 5:56PM
Margie,
Please show Doctor Wrong your link to Mr. Cloud's list of the early Church Fathers, and how they taught Catholic doctrines.
The Doc thinks Constantine founded the Catholic Church.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 9:53PM
The perverted doctrines of the earliest "church fathers" began very early on, sadly.
These teachings did not agree with the Scriptures, or the teachings of the Apostles. And the Catholic church still teaches them.
Constantine was another in a long line of these heretics, who taught and believed them, and worse. He coddled the insane and ungodly Arius, whom you're other pal, the lying accuser of the brethren, "Frisbee" falsely accuses me of being a follower.
May they burn in Hell for eternity if they do not repent.
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 9:53PM
Which teachings? The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ is True God. If you believe that then you are not an Arian.
The Catholic Church also teaches that Jesus Christ is True Man. If you believe that, then you share a doctrine with the Catholic church.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:31PM
"These men were apostates and liars."
They were willing to die for their faith--and often did. Which is, I hazard, more than Marge is willing to do for whatever faith it is she espouses this morning.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:38PM
Mr. Koehl,
I offer you my neck on the chopping block.
I know what you would do.
And in your utter deceit, as usual, you seek to misrepresent what I say.
A foul, sick spirit you possess.
Anyone can read the history of the Catholic Papacy and the men who were in agreement with them who put to death the real Christians, who~ like myself believed only what the Scripture says, and the Apostles, and rejected the sick cult of Catholicism.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:19PM
"I offer you my neck on the chopping block.
I know what you would do."
I won't have to. Your stupidity and your intemperate tongue will get you there without any help from me.
Margie| 5.7.11 @ 12:42AM
And your hatred of the true God will get you thrown into Hell.
"If the world hates you, know that it has hated Me before it hated you.
If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.
Remember the word that I said to you, 'A servant is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you; if they kept My Word, they will keep yours also.
But all this they will do to you on My account, because they do not know Him who sent Me.
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.
He who hates Me hates My Father also." Jn. 15:18-23.
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 9:58PM
Margie hoards the blessings for herself, and showers the curses on others. It's creepy.
Margie, quoting the Bible about the wicked and the blessed doesn't determine which one you are.
"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' " (Matthew 7:22-23 NIV)
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 6:01PM
If you dismiss the early Church fathers, then you are in fact also dismissing St. Peter and St. Paul, the writers of the Gospels, and everyone Jesus taught.
Pzkfw| 5.6.11 @ 12:41PM
Why does this religious commentry infect this site? I visit this site to partipate in conservative dialog, yet the the bible-thumpers constantly intrude themselves. Does everyone assume a conservative is a jesus freak? NO...move this dialog to some christian site and stop distracting the purpose of this site with pope nonsense.
Al Adab| 5.6.11 @ 1:58PM
Actually Pzkfw, The Church in the ecumenical sense, has a significant role to play in Western Civilization. Thanks to the American founders its' role is most clearly defined. The Church ie the body of believers, can allow the state to be the state within its proper political function. It is the role of The Church in this context to monitor the actions of the state, to make sure they comport with universal moral positions; that they neither ignore nor create excessive law and order; and that they do not violate principles of equality and justice.
We could spend a lot of time on this but I hope this is clear. It does not imply that the Pope nor any single individual speaks for The Church, but rather that the instituion, in its many facets, does play a role in our governance and our society. Do not construe this to deny your individual right to disbelief. Under conpulsion, Faith like charity, is no faith at all.
Pzkfw| 5.6.11 @ 3:10PM
I truly appreciate the tone and content of your response. An unusual thing on this website. I'm a simple man and, as you can see, not religious.
Given that simplicity, I'm tired of the constant discussion of the notion that this nation being founded on a judeo/christian basis, and that seems to be a basis for political and national behavior. If so, what about seperation of church and state?
In any case, I'm impressed by your adult response and appreciate the rational content.
On this site...refreshing
Al Adab| 5.6.11 @ 4:37PM
I thank you for your courtesy.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:47PM
Pzkfw wrote: "move this dialog to some christian site and stop distracting the purpose of this site with pope nonsense"
What are you so upset about? The article was about the Pope.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:49PM
pzkfw,
sorry to note, but this country DOES have a judeo-christian foundation. In honor of Haym Solomon, George Washington arranged for a Star of David to be placed on each one dollar bill.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:11PM
Dear Pzkfw, here goes the actual discussion of separation of church and state: the Founders wanted Government to not interfere with the practice of religion. They were far from hostile to the practice of religion. The ACLU has twisted this beyond recognition. The original idea was simply to oppose the creation of a tax supported church, or an "established" church. Interestingly, the USA is much more religious than the UK now, despite the presence of an "established" church in the UK. The Church of England has a poofter as Archbishop of Canterbury; a man willing to advocate the spread of Sharia law.
RCV| 5.7.11 @ 5:00PM
Ocaam: you make the same error many make when speaking of "the Founding Fathers" view of church and state, as if they were of one mind, which they were decidedly not. While many shared the views you summarize, Jefferson -- the father of the term "wall of separation between church and state" did not. Jefferson was as distrustful of organized religion as he was of the state. His belief in strict separation led him to refuse to issue Thanksgiving proclamations or days of prayer as violative of the First Amendment. Others, like Tom Paine, were overtly hostile to religion.
Poof| 5.6.11 @ 2:58PM
@ Pzkfw
That's pretty stark language: "religious commentary infect" and "pope nonsense." Religion and morality are very much part of conservative dialogue. Why this needs to be explained to you is another matter.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:32PM
There is only two of them, as far as I can see. Does two a community make?
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:54AM
What model tank are you, Mr. Panzerkampfwagon?
Cro-magnon| 5.6.11 @ 1:03PM
So Constantine didn't convert to Christianity, he hyjacked it and founded Catholism? Interesting.
Biblical Faith + Greek Philosophy + Roman Law = Western Civilization. I think Benedict is being charitable (and catholic) when he says that Christianity integrated the three. It was Paul and the Church (pre, and post Constantine) that laid the foundations for Europe.
Benedict does indeed have have a political agenda in mind. He'd like to breach the shcisms and recombine the Catholic, orthodox and 35,001 protestant churches into one apostasy-free Apostolic church.
What's wrong with that now that Ceasar's gone? It's a couple hundred years overdue IMO.
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 1:36PM
If Mr. Ratzinger has as his goal the "reuniting" of various denominations under the rubric of Catholicism, then he's tilting at windmills.
Personally, I would NEVER accept this, and most Christians I know wouldn't, either.
Maybe Ratzinger has it backwards? Maybe the apostate catholic Church should re-evaluate THEIR positions, compare them to scripture, and jettison the decidedly un-Christian doctrines??
But that would be akin to the rich man giving up his money and power to follow Christ...It AIN'T gonna' happen.
Josef Stalin| 5.6.11 @ 1:57PM
And how many divisions does the Pope have? Heck, he can't even get his Bishops to obey him. Some power. And the last time I checked, Pope JPII was penniless when he died. His healthcare was no better than what a retired farmer on Medicare gets in the US. So much for your theory of "money and power".
Doctor Right| 5.6.11 @ 2:52PM
The concept that JP II, who lived in a palace, and who had his every need catered to, and who traveled the world 1st-class, and who headed a multi-billion dollar organization, died "penniless" is pretty stupid, don't you think
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 2:28PM
Caesaro-papism was an eastern error, not a western one.
I am under the impression that Doctor Right is a Jehovah's Witness.
Doctor Right: do you accept the Divinity of Christ?
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 4:31PM
I agree: He's a Jehovah's Witness. You can never get a straight answer out of any of them. Christ founded the Church. Christ is the head of the Church and the Pope is his early general manager. The Church gave us the Bible. The Bible was assembled out of the traditional and most authentic writings of the Apostles and some of their followers. It Includes the full Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. That is what Jesus and the Apostles were familiar with and they quote it extensivly.
Jack in Wi.| 5.6.11 @ 4:36PM
I meant to say that Christ is the Head of the Church and the Pope is his earthly general mananger. Do you think that God who made us all would lead us without any earthly direction?
In regards the to the Emperor Constantine. He paid for the first 50 copies of the Bible to be published. that was a huge expenses. One still exists in the Vatican. I would think that all those Bible thumpers would show some appreciation.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 5:16PM
Hi Jack in WI: You wrote "Do you think that God who made us all would lead us without any earthly direction?"
It is clear from the Bible that Jesus sent men on earth to perpetuate and rule his Church, and that those men sent other men, and so on. The Father sent Jesus. Jesus sent the Apostles. The Apostles sent other men (episkopoi) such as Timothy and Philemon, and told them to "call to obedience".
Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium all point to eachother, and contain eachother, and support eachother.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 5:12PM
I seem to recall Dr Right saying somewhere that he would "vote for Santorum". JW's don't vote, so either he's fallen away or they've changed their story.
At any rate, they seem to get some of their venom from the Seventh Day Adventists. See interaction with Margie below.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:35PM
Actually, that's not true, and most reputable historians now recognize that Gibbon's caricature of state-church relations under the Byzantine Empire amounts to calumny. But I'm not going to repeat that argument again.
"I am under the impression that Doctor Right is a Jehovah's Witness."
Oh, goodie! Does this mean after May 31, we won't have to bother with him anymore?
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 6:08PM
Dr. (Mostly) Right,
You sound just like the leftists that want the Catholic Church to "re-evaluate" and "reform" their understanding about homosexuality, homosexual "marriage," women's ordination, abortion, and euthanasia, among other issues.
Rich D| 5.6.11 @ 1:42PM
What does "combine" mean and why do we need it? Do you mean a central authority other than Christ?
The initial problems came when the freedom of the Christian met Jewish legalism and the Hegelian result was rules, laws, and offices.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 5:27PM
I think by "recombine" he means to come back into communion with. The east and west mutually ex-communicated eachother in 1053 AD. But both maintained valid episcopal orders and sacraments.
Protestantism took things way further, and by rejecting all church authority entirely created a "me and my bible" plethora of doctrines and churches. Every man is his own Pope.
Paul exhorted the Corinthians "that there be no dissensions among you". 1 Cor 1:10
Rich D| 5.6.11 @ 5:54PM
All church authority? Not really. Are you being hyperbolic?
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:49PM
Please feel free to suggest a better wording. It was not my intent to be hyperbolic. Luther created the term "sola scriptura", and in the early days rejected any authority over himself (except secular authority, or maybe power). The fact that protestants soon found themselves with various forms of clergy and institutions doesn't negate the fact that the first impetus was (entirely) against it. Protestants probably accept the sense of authority "from the Father" or mediated from the secular authority, but not as handed down in succession from episcope to episcope from the Incarnate Jesus.
On reading my post again, I think the "all" meant they rejected not just the Pope's authority (in the way the East rejected it) but also all Episcopal and Priestly Orders as Sacraments and as Succession. It was a far more sweeping rejection of authority (I mean real authority) as an institution, compared to the Eastern Schism.
So here is my correction: "Protestantism took things way further, and by rejecting all episcopal authority and apostolic succession entirely...".
Ceasar| 5.6.11 @ 2:03PM
You really need to re-read your history. The glory of both Rome and Constantine were gone by the 6th Century. Roman civilization devolved into a cesspool of barbaric free-for-all. Between the Goths, Huns, Lombards, and Franks civic and Christian society was expunged. Europe had to be re-Christianized. North Africa wasn't so lucky (niether was the Iberian Penninsula) which fell to the Muslim armies. Whatever Constantine accomplished was for naught. The new civilization was based upon the missionairies and reform Benedictines. It was a long and messy history; but in the long run, it worked.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 2:23PM
Ceasar: don't confuse the East and the West. The "Roman" empire flourished in the East for another 1000 years. Islam took Africa and the Middle East including the Holy Land quickly (and Spain), but did not finally destroy the Empire until it took Constantinople in 1453.
Akaky| 5.6.11 @ 2:05PM
"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in being with the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us men and our salvation He came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit, He was born of the Virgin Mary , and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate; He suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the scriptures: He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. "
Said everyday in every Catholic church in the world; sounds like a lot of unChristian rubbish to me, Doc.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:37PM
We of the Eastern Catholic Churches leave out "and the Son". I hope some day my Latin brethren will follow suit.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 8:19PM
Christos Anesti Stuart!
Have you ever read any David Bentley Hart? He has a great Illustrated History of Christianity, and writes regularly over at First Things magazine. He is Orthodox, and an excellent writer, but get your dictionary handy. The Atheists seeth with rage against him.
http://www.firstthings.com/art.....-it-or-not
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:37PM
Alithos anesti!
Not only read him, I've met him on several occasions. He represents much of what I consider is best in Orthodoxy, a man of rare erudition, deep faith, and an irenic spirit.
David T| 5.6.11 @ 8:48PM
Re: the "filioque": I think subtle and practical differences in Trinitarian theology between East and West had an enormous impact on the culture and politics in each area. Arianism, for example, was much more of a problem in the East. If Christ was not true deity, how could he send the Spirit?
Arian subordinationists said the Spirit proceeded from the Father only. Rome inserted the filioque in the creed to guard against this heresy. The Eastern Church resented this presumption but did not think through the implications with respect to the economy of the Godhead. The practical result was a weak and unbalanced concept of the Trinity--unity (Oneness of the Father) over diversity (Three co-equal and co-eternal Persons).
The reason the state took on such a commanding role in the East, over time, was because its reach for power wasn't counterbalanced, as in the West, by the enculturated belief that man's liberty was rooted in Christ alone (See Chalcedon). The East did not fully develop the Western idea of "sphere authority"--church, state, family--where authority is limited and delegated. Instead, the state became the preeminent authority.
Just sayin'
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:29PM
You don't take correction well, do you? In the first place, there is no difference between the Trinitarian theology of the Orthodox Churches and the Latin Church.
In the second place, if you read the Clarification on the procession of the Holy Spirit by the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity, the link to which I presented to you yesterday, you would see that the Catholic Church--all of it--considers the uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantiople to be the one ecumenically binding symbol of faith for all Christians.
In the third place, the Orthodox Churches are not Arian, and Arianism ceased to be a problem in the Eastern Churches by the end of the 4th century. On the other hand, it lingered in the West for several centuries thereafter, mainly because the Arian Goths and Vandals were running the show in places like Italy and Spain. The 7th Century Council of Toledo--a purely local synod with no authority outside of Spain-- inserted the Filioque clause to counteract the influence of neo-Arianism in Spain. Missionaries took the modified Creed to the Carolingian court where it caught on among the Franks. They tried several times to impose the modified Creed on the Church of Rome, only to be repudiated by the Pope. Pope Nicholas I, in fact, was so annoyed that he had the text of the Creed-without the Filioque--engraved on silver plaques that were hung from the doors of Old St. Peters Basilica (and were still there in the 16th century, before the old church was demolished). It was not until the 11th century that the Church of Rome formally accepted the Filioque, with all the baleful repercussions thereof.
"The reason the state took on such a commanding role in the East, over time, was because its reach for power wasn't counterbalanced, as in the West, by the enculturated belief that man's liberty was rooted in Christ alone (See Chalcedon)."
I told you this was bull before, not the least because Chalcedon is a Christological, not theological Council, which had nothing to do with Trinitarianism at all. I suggest that wherever you get your information, you being to look elsewhere. There is a decided taint of sedevacantism about you.
David T| 5.7.11 @ 1:28PM
I appear to have struck a nerve. I never said Trinitarian doctrine differed between East and West. I said I thought there were subtle differences in belief and practice between them that appeared to have some contrasting effects on their culture and politics.
Philosphers from the ancient Greeks have struggled with the problem of unity and diversity, the "one and the many." Is existence static (Parmenides) or chaotic (Heraclitus)? How do the two views relate? The Christian Trinity solved the problem--unity and diversity are equally ultimate. This played out in the social order of the West through a balanced approach between freedom and control. But what happened in the East? Government seemed to dominate the Church. My question was, Why did this happen? I posited that maybe it was Arian influence. From what I've read about Constantine, he harbored Arian tendencies until the day he died.
But you say Ariansim was more of a problem in the West. Given that, maybe it was the intellectual give-and-take between the Trinitarians and the Arians that helped the West forge a stronger link between Christology and polity. After all, you never heard "No King but Jesus" coming from the East. I don't think that's "bull" at all.
I am not arguing for the filioque--never have, never will. I'm just pondering the Trinitarian--and, yes, the theological and Christological (how can you separate them?)--implications, and subsequent religio-cultural-political impact, of filioque-type thinking. Does its presence or absence have any bearing at all on the presence or absence of subordinationism?
I am not making this up. In my Reformed Presbyterian days, I read a lot of Rousas Rushdoony, Gary North, and other Christian Reconstructionists. I've since moved on to the Catholic Church, but I've probably retained a remnant of Reconstructionist thought.
Finally, there's no need to blacklist me. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a sedevacantist. I'm not sure how you construed that from anything I said.
Dominus vobiscum.
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:03PM
I think Stuart mistook you for Clint.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:42PM
False doctrines of Catholicism. This is NOT Christianity:
http://www.therickabys.com/sda.....ticle.html
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 4:30PM
So you're a Seventh Day Adventist? Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. Stop Judaizing the Gospel.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 4:47PM
Liars go to Hell.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 6:53PM
Pray for them Margie, and maybe God will grant them repentance and salvation.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:38PM
I should be extremely cautious in making such claims, Marge, lest you be condemned by your own mouth before the judgment seat of Christ.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 9:49PM
Heh, Stuey who continually bears false witness here, along with his pals, outright lying and accusing, yet says this!
Do you not believe the Scriptures Who bear witness to Jesus Christ, Who is the Father and the Way, the Truth and the Life?
He says indeed that liars will not be allowed into Heaven. As it is written:
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the Tree of Life and that they may enter the City by the gates.
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.
"I Jesus have sent my Angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the bright Morning Star."
The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let him who hears say, "Come." And let him who is thirsty come, let him who desires take the Water of Life without price.
I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if any one adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book,
and if any one takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the Tree of Life and in the Holy City, which are described in this book.
He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
The Grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints. Amen." Rev. 22:14-21.
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:10PM
Ohhh - I see. Margie is a Patripassionist. She believes Jesus is the Father.
I take back the suggestion she may be an Arian.
Congratulations Margie! By believing in the Divinity of Christ, you share a Doctrine with the Catholic Church.
Do you also believe in the Humanity of Christ?
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 2:48PM
"But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people." 2 Tim. 3:1-5.
"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep." 2 Pe. 2:1-3.
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry." 2 Tim. 4:3-5.
Praise God.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 4:25PM
Margie: do you accept the Divinity of Christ, or not?
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 4:27PM
Are you insane?
Frisbee,
Do you accept only the teachings of Jesus Himself, the Scriptures, and what the Apostles taught?
If not, then you are in direct rebellion toward God because you are responsible for what and Whom you obey.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 4:38PM
No, I'm not insane, though I am a sinner.
I'll take your answer as a "no", you do not accept the Divinity of Christ. So you are some kind of neo-Arian, a modified SDA-er, an Armstrong "Worldwide Church of God" follower.
I accept all Truth however it comes to me. I accept the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, "all the scriptures" the Apostles did (even those you reject), what the Apostles taught, and the Church Jesus founded.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 4:46PM
You are a liar.
Liars go to Hell.
I have taken my stand on the Bible, and have said repeatedly that I believe EVERY WORD OF GOD.
You have just born false witness and you KNOW what God will do to you for that, don't you?
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 5:08PM
Careful, you remember the Spec chastised you last time for calling Ryan that. No, we are not liars. Everybody sees now that you attack the beliefs of others while keeping your own secret.
I have borne testimony to the truth, and you hate me for that.
Oh Jesus, I worship you as my Lord and my God, as the Apostle Thomas did. Amen. (John 20:28)
You hate me and you hate the Apostle Thomas (who by the way went on to found Catholic churches in India.)
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 5:22PM
Spectator is basically Catholic leaning.
Ryan said that it was "dangerous" to quote from the Scriptures, and sadly others agreed.
That IS a lie.
Ryan, in his typical and nonsensical harassing and wrongly accusatory manner kept it up.
A lie is a lie is a lie.
You are a liar, and so is ANYONE who disagrees with the Scriptures, and for accusing a Christian wrongly for quoting them.
You keep lying~ and it really doesn't matter that you have others here who back you~ God throws liars into Hell.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:03PM
Maybe he mis-worded it. Don't you think maybe you are being too judgmental and harsh? Why not attempt a kind correction instead?
I am not a liar. That sin has no place in me.
I do not disagree with any Scripture.
If I accused you of anything, please tell me what it was. Do you mean the "neo-Arian" thing? Sorry - there should hav been a question mark there. If you accept the Divinity of Christ, then you are not a neo-Arian.
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 6:16PM
Margie,
I will not say I speak for Ryan (who from his posts knows his Bible quite well). My understanding of what Ryan said about quoting Scripture is that it is dangerous to quote Scripture out of context and to try and make the Scripture in question "prove" a point which the particular passage is not trying to prove, or possible even address.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:52PM
Frisbee,
Margie believes that Christ is Divine, I think. She also is quite nice when not having to deal with a stick in her eye. My apologies for the intemperate behavior of my fellow Bloggers, Margie.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 8:24PM
I would happy to hear her state her belief in His Divinity.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 8:30PM
O.T.,
Thank you.
Frisbee knows that already, as I've been posting here for a couple of years and for those couple of years have always posted about my belief in Christ.
You see, the issue is this, once again: Catholicism (which isn't the same thing as Christianity), does not teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, it teaches a different one.
The reason why the despicable liar "Frisbee" & co. have a huge problem with the likes of me is because I refuse to bow to the false teaches, and they honestly believe (like good cult members) that anyone who doesn't believe what they do are to be killed (figuratively speaking, of course).
Truly, if the Papal persecutions were still active today, both you and I would be tortured severely and murdered by their disgusting ilk.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:41PM
Not a response, Marge.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:40PM
All Marge was asked to do was provide a simple yes or no answer to a simple yes or no question, to which she responds with unadulterated vitriol. One would think she has something she wants to obscure.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 9:35PM
Everyone but you and your pals know EXACTLY where I stand about my faith in Christ.
I don't play in your perverted game.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:36PM
"Everyone but you and your pals know EXACTLY where I stand about my faith in Christ."
Somewhere out in left field, Marge?
What is so hard about saying, "Yes, I believe that Jesus Christ is truly God"? Unless of course, you don't believe that?
That's why the Church developed Creeds, you know--so that we wouldn't be baptizing just any Tom, Dick or Margie. No, to get into the club, you have to believe what Chrsitians believe, which is why, before baptism, every Catholic and Orthodox catechumen must first repudiate Satan, and all his demons, and all his falsehood, and all his works, and then, turning to face the East, repeat the Symbol of Faith that begins,
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible,
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
Begotten of the Father before all ages,
Light from Light, True God from True God,
Begotten, not made,
Of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made. . .
With what part of this statement of faith do you disagree, Marge. And, more important, why do you disagree, and what do you believe instead?
Why should we take at face value your profession to be a Christian, when you will not affirm the understanding of God that all true Christians have affirmed for 1600 years?
Margie| 5.7.11 @ 1:04AM
Do you realize how utterly immature you are Stuey boy?
What a punk.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 1:25AM
Marge,
I notice two differences between us.
First, I publish under my own name. Everybody knows who I am. You hide behind a pseudonym, as though you don't want people to know who you are.
Second, I stand behind every word I write, whereas you hide behind every word you write.
One just has to wonder why you don't answer straightforward questions, and why it is you do not want people to know who you are and what you believe.
Margie's Husband| 5.6.11 @ 11:41PM
Marge! I want my dinner, now@ And I'm not talking about Hamburger Helper and a side dish of Funions! I want real food this time! Can't you leave the'puter alone for 1 minute? I promise that if you make me a chicken fired steak with taters I will get you a DSL account and shutdown our 56k dial up. Please, pretty please?
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:01AM
Get her an on-line thesaurus, while you're at it. Maybe she'll show some variety in her imprecations. I've seen better insults in the Pyongyong Times.
Frisbee| 5.8.11 @ 7:20PM
Thanks Stuart for picking up this thread. I suspected something foul among some of these posters when they claimed that they didn't share ANY doctrine with the catholic church. I thought, c'mon, you serious? Surely they believe that Jesus is the "I AM". Turns out not.
Still strange though, that they believe in the Inspiration of Sacred Scripture (but of what canon we don't know) like the Catholic and Orthodox do. So they DO share some doctrine with Catholics anyway. (Boy, I bet they're ticked now!)
Stuart Koehl| 5.8.11 @ 8:46PM
To DR and Marge and everyone else, sooner or later, we have to answer the question the Master posed to Simon bar Jonah: "Who do YOU say I am?"
I find it very easy to say, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God", and gladly add, "of one essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit".
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:14PM
Hi Stuart:
In a post above Margie states "Do you not believe the Scriptures Who bear witness to Jesus Christ, Who is the Father..."
She is not an Arian. She is a patripassionist. She thinks Jesus is the Father. I saw some pamphlets
from a pentecostal group of patripassionists 30 years ago.
Which reminds me, today is the 30th anniversary of the shooting of John Paul 2.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 2:58PM
I'm sure that, in his civilizational mission, Pope Benedict would heartily condemn the use of such soul-crushing neologisms as "proactive".
Adolf From Berlin| 5.6.11 @ 3:04PM
The Chair Recognizes Mao From Beijing.
Mao From Beijing, "We Chinese Commies Had The Same Problem, As Margie From Munich & Dr. Reich. May I Suggest Our Solution" ?
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 3:04PM
I see the same ignorati are at it again. "Never wrestle with a pig--you get covered with poo, and the pig enjoys it."
Since Marge, Dr. Right et alia are all too ignorant--nay, dare I say stupid--to know when they are wrong, I'll just stay out of this and watch them make fools of themselves once more.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 12:58AM
I admit I couldn't keep away. Like a moth to the flame. Fortunately, I'll be on vacation and away from the internet for the next ten days or so, which will give me the opportunity to rediscover people who aren't as pinched, bigoted and stupid as some whose names I won't mention.
Too Many Tims| 5.6.11 @ 3:18PM
"When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors and to those who are still in the hall. If they are wrong they need your prayers all the more; and if they are your enemies, then you are under orders to pray for them. That is one of the rules common to the whole house."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis
Freddy G| 5.6.11 @ 4:42PM
Martin Luther, a catholic priest, had it right centuries ago. The church is still corrupt and arbitrary today showing a form of godliness but denying the power thereof. Jesus saves not the catholic church and not this pope or anyother pope.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 5:41PM
Martin Luther's refusal to retract all of his writings at the demand of Pope Leo X in 1520 and the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V at the Diet of Worms in 1521 resulted in his excommunication by the pope and condemnation as an outlaw by the emperor.
"I had made up my mind to write no more either about the Jews or against them. But since I learned that these miserable and accursed people do not cease to lure to themselves even us, that is, the Christians, I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews who warned the Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself. However, the devil is the god of the world, and wherever God's word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen."
-Martin Luther (On the Jews and Their Lies)
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:24PM
Actually, the Church lost patience with Luther when he started attacking Scripture in the Epistle of James, calling it "an Epistle of straw". Luther didn't like the fact that James says "you are justified by works, and not by faith alone". Luther believed in justification by faith "alone".
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:58PM
Luther was wrong, but I believe Anglican theologian N.T. Wright is correct when he says just about every Western theologian from the Middle Ages onward, was also wrong about what Paul meant by "justification".
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:16PM
I agree with St Peter, who said the writings of Paul were difficult to understand.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:55PM
Dear Clint:
do you not agree with Martin Luther on Jews? You certainly do not agree with the teachings of Vatican II.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 10:02PM
Neither Do You Israel Firster Fanatic Tool Job.
Nostra Aetate is the Declaration on the Relation of the Church with Non-Christian Religions of the Second Vatican Council.
"Part three goes on to say that the Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem, and then continues by describing some of the things Islam has in common with Christianity and Catholicism: worship of One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Merciful and Omnipotent, Who has spoken to men; the Muslims' respect for Abraham and Mary, and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a Prophet and not God. The synod urged all Catholics and Muslims to forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit."
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 4:43PM
Here you have, Dear Occam's Tool,
The difference between those who stand on God's own Words~ these are the Christians~ and those who choose to belong to a cult.
The cult of Catholicism that was built upon the lies of wolves in sheep's clothing who brought in the biggest and most despicable heresies ever known to mankind in order to destroy Christianity.
The cult members will defend their cult until their dying day unless the LORD intervenes, and just exactly the same kind of hatred that was pronounced upon the Bible believing Christians in their days of the murderous Papacy for centuries~ it continues here and now.
Occam: Read Martyrs Mirror.
Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs.
These "men" (beasts) that Catholicism reveres are the same ones who were in agreement that what?
That anyone who did not obey their cult should be put to death. Tortured first, of course.
The same sickening spirit lives in beasts like Clint/Tim*, Stuart Koehl, and all others who choose to profane Him and His.
Jesus and the Apostles taught from the Scriptures.
Catholicism does not.
You have witnessed the behavior of those that follow the Devil, and those who do not.
Jack Chick| 5.6.11 @ 6:22PM
Great post Marge!!!!!!!!!
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:18PM
You're not THE Jack Chick are you?
Dude, in one of your pamphlets you quote the Scribes who were attacking Jesus "He blaphemes. Who can forgive sins but God only?" against the Catholic Church.
The Catholic Church must continue the mission of forgiving sins no matter how much you quote the enemies of Jesus.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:28PM
Oh, and by the way Jack, you believe in the Divinity of Christ don't you? Can you ask Margie if she does?
victor| 5.8.11 @ 3:34AM
Frisbee:
"The Catholic Church must continue the mission of forgiving sins"
Yo Dude, the catholic church can do nothing of the sort.
Only GOD can forgive Sin.
Even David knew where he had to go to confess his sin:
Psa 25:18
"Consider my affliction and my trouble, and forgive all my sins."
And again:
Psa 32:5
"I acknowledged my sin to You, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, "I will confess my transgressions to the LORD"; then did You forgive the guilt of my sin."
God tells us to come unto Him:
2 Chronicles 6:21
"Hearken therefore unto the supplications of thy servant, and of thy people Israel, which they shall make toward this place: hear thou from thy dwelling place, even from heaven; and when thou hearest, forgive."
The catholic church teaches things that are completely and contrary to God:
"The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."
" Were there no forgiveness of sins in the Church, there would be no hope of life to come or eternal liberation. Let us thank God who has given his Church such a gift."
"Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins 'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:21PM
Why do you quote the Old Testament against Jesus? If you are a Jew, that is understandable, and if you are a Protestant then it is typical but not understandable.
The Catholic Church follows Jesus Christ. Jesus told them "If you forgive anyone's sins, they are forgiven. If you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:23)
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 6:38PM
Which Scriptures did they use, Marge?
victor| 5.8.11 @ 3:55AM
Hey Stuart,
Where in your "scriptures" will I find:
infant baptism,
indulgences,
purgatory,
confession to priests,
celibacy of priests,
Inquiring Christian Minds want to know.
Stuart Koehl| 5.8.11 @ 9:15PM
"infant baptism,"
Peter baptizes Cornelius and his entire household.
"Indulgences" and "purgtory"
Not in scripture, but an elaboration on the scriptural notion that those who die need to be purified before entering the presence of God. Partly it is based on the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. For what it is worth, my particular Catholic Church (Melkite) does not subscribe to either doctrine, but to the basic teaching of the early Church--just as do the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East. All believe that those who die in Christ fall asleep and are purified. We subscribe to the understanding of salvation as theosis, as per 2 Peter 1:4, that we will become partakers in the divine nature.
"confession to priests,"
Confession in the early Church, which is derived from the teachings of the Epistle of St. James, was originally made in public before the entire congregation, which then absolved the sinner of his offenses. This power was given to the Church by Christ himself, who told his Disciples, "All that you bind on earth is bound in heaven. All that you loose on earth is loosed in heaven".
As you can imagine, there came a time, as the Church grew beyond a small elite group, when this became pastorally difficult. Then, the bishop heard confessions and absolved the sinner on behalf of the people. As the Church grew, this ministry was delegated to the presbyters.
In the Eastern Churches, the presbyter does not use the first person singular. That is, instead of saying "I absolve you", the presbyter says "The servant of God N.__ is absolved in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
It is not necessary to confess to a priest to receive God's forgiveness; "a contrite spirit You will not spurn" (Ps. 50/51). But when we sin, we do so not only against God, but against each other, and we must be reconciled with our brothers and sisters in Christ. Sin also has a cosmic dimension: every individual sin continues and exacerbates the brokenness of the universe that began with Adam's sin. The purpose of confession is thus to reconcile us with the community, and to provide a modicum of healing for the universe.
In the Eastern Churches, we tend to see confession less as about atonement for past sins as about strengthening the soul to avoid future sins. We see sin in a medicinal, rather than a juridical light, more a spiritual sickness in need of healing, than a violation of law in need of punishment. Confession, prayer, fasting, reconciliation and restoration of communion are the way we do this.
"celibacy of priests"
Celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Church, first mentioned in the 4th century, but not enforced until the 11th. Until that time, most priests, and even a couple of Popes, were married.
Clerical celibacy is not a doctrine, nor is it divinely mandated. As such, it has always been possible to dispense priests from the discipline. Such is the case with former Anglican priests who have entered into communion with the Latin Church: if married, they are ordained and allowed to remain married. At present, there are more than one hundred married Latin priests in the United States, and several hundred more in England and around the world.
Now, this discipline applies only to the Latin Church, or the "Roman" Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is a communion of 22 "particular Churches", of which 21 are "Eastern Catholic Churches", which follow the same rites as the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches. All of them have been ordaining married men since the days of the Apostles, without interruption. The parish of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church to which I belong ordained a married man to the presbyterate only a couple of years ago. Most of our priests are married, as are most other Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian priests.
The discipline of these Churches allows us to ordain married men, but prohibits priests from marrying or remarrying, partly because of the pastoral problems that can emerge (a problem with which Protestant communities are very well aware), and partly because we take seriously St. Paul's advice to Timothy that a presbyter should be the husband of one wife. For the Eastern Christians, marriage is a sacrament that continues beyond death, and we recognize only one sacramental marriage in a lifetime.
I have answered all your questions in a serious, polite and informative manner, even though your tone was belligerent and the chip on your shoulder the size of 2 x 4.
I should hope that, in the future, if you have a question, you would have the common decency to ask in a civilized manner, and be prepared to receive the answer with an open mind.
Margie| 5.9.11 @ 1:08PM
"infant baptism,"
Peter baptizes Cornelius and his entire household."
Having read Acts 10, I have found no reference to infant baptism.
Verse 24 refers to his relatives and close friends. You are inferring that they included children or infants.
Those in attendance were old enough to have come of their own free will and were choosing to accept Christ into their heart and their lives.
There is nothing to support your claim.
"Indulgences" and "purgtory"
Not in scripture, " Unbiblical!
"but an elaboration on the scriptural notion that those who die need to be purified before entering the presence of God."
Chapter and verse please?
"confession to priests,"
Confession in the early Church, which is derived from the teachings of the Epistle of St. James, was originally made in public before the entire congregation, which then absolved the sinner of his offenses."
James taught in 5:16 that:
"Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much."
He was teaching that believers should confess their sin to one another, no one else, much less a priest, being necessary.
"This power was given to the Church by Christ himself, who told his Disciples, "All that you bind on earth is bound in heaven. All that you loose on earth is loosed in heaven".
Matt 18:18
"Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in Heaven."
Are you saying that we will be confessing our sin to priests in heaven?
What will we be confessing to?
"celibacy of priests"
Celibacy is a discipline of the Latin Church,"
A practice of the church that the church made up? Unbiblical!
You have hereby confessed that you are following teachings that do not come from Scripture.
What do you think God will say to that?
victor| 5.9.11 @ 1:42PM
Correction:
This was my response to Stuart.
Stuart
"I should hope that, in the future, if you have a question, you would have the common decency to ask in a civilized manner, and be prepared to receive the answer with an open mind.'
And that, of course, applies to you as well.
Stuart Koehl| 5.9.11 @ 4:40PM
Victor,
Respect is earned. Neither you, nor DR, not Marge, nor Clint (is there anyone I have overlooked? If so, I apologize) ever bothered to even try to engage me in civil discourse. I have answered your questions (or rather, accusations and condemnations) rationally and factually, gaining in response nothing but more insults, imprecations and condemnations.
Man up, little one, and learn to talk with grown ups.
Stuart Koehl| 5.9.11 @ 4:37PM
"Verse 24 refers to his relatives and close friends. You are inferring that they included children or infants."
In the first century AD, "household" meant everybody living under one roof under the authority of a single adult male. It included all blood relatives, relatives by marriage, free persons and slaves, adults and children alike. A man such as Cornelius, if he was at all typical, would be married, have several children ranging from adulthood to pre-adolescence, and his family would have had several chilren as well. In addition to these, his freedmen and slaves would themselves have several children. A centurion like Cornelius, a man of tremendous status and influence in his community, would have a large and extended household. This is covered by the Evangelical biblical scholar Wayne Meeks in his book, "The First Urban Christians".
Arguments from silence are never valid or convincing.
"He was teaching that believers should confess their sin to one another, no one else, much less a priest, being necessary."
And this is what the early Church did, until the increasing size of the community made public confession pastorally problematic.
"Are you saying that we will be confessing our sin to priests in heaven?"
It will no longer be necessary, insofar as we will know ourselves as we are known by Christ. Confession, like all the Sacraments, is a typos of the Kingdom of God, not the Kingdom in its fullness.
"A practice of the church that the church made up? Unbiblical!"
Every group is entitled to devise its own particular disciplines. Whatever group it is to which you belong (unless you are indeed a Church of one) likewise makes up its own disciplines. Even if you are a Church of one, you make up disciplines for yourself. There were Jewish groups of the first century that practiced celibacy, as did Jesus himself.
You studiously ignored what I wrote about the Greek Catholic and the Orthodox, and our particular discipline.
"What do you think God will say to that?"
He will say, "Well done, good and faithful servant." Like the stewards who took the Master's talents and invested them wisely, yielding great dividends, we have taken the deposit of faith given to us and attended to it wisely, unlike the foolish steward who took what he was given and buried it in the backyard.
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:27PM
But Stuart: Purgatory IS in the Bible. 1 Cor 3:15
So is Celibacy: Matthew 19:12.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 7:30PM
"If the books of the New Testament are inspired, "god-breathed" scripture, then the men who wrote them must have gotten their material from God himself.
To extend this to future teachings of the Church is no big deal to God. After all, Jesus promised that he would be with us till the end of time and that the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into all truth.
Therefore, the Pope and the Magisterium of the Church can be prevented from teaching error in matters of faith and morals by simply sticking to what is revealed to them by God as truth already "loosed" or "bound" in heaven.
For us, this happens in the course of time, but God is outside of time, so what we learn (and here I would say "learn" means to declare formally since all revelation has been given already) in 1854 or 1950 or at some point in the future is already known by God."
cliff| 5.6.11 @ 11:44PM
I ask again, why didn't Christ write the gospels in His own hand? Certainly he could have. Why did He teach through his actions and not written words, but we are supposed to worship someone else's written words as the bedrock of our church and our belief? Tell me I'm not Christian all you want, but first answer the question. Perhaps then you can convert me, and isn't that what this should be about?
mames| 5.8.11 @ 8:16PM
The core issue is that Romans teach an "infused" grace, one that is given over time via the Holy Spirit. The Bible teaches an "imputed" grace that is given once and totally through the Holy Spirit with, in and under the Gospel. Catholics therefore can never know if their salvation is secure because they can never find enough evidence that the infusion is complete. (ergo pergatory, limbo). Bible believers trust the promise of God in Christ and find the security of salvation not in themselves but in the Gospel promise of God. Infusion is subjective and Gods imputation is objective and depends upon nothing in me or anything I have done or ever will do. Luther pledged that he would carry the Pope around on his shoulders the rest of his life if the Pope would simply proclaim the true Gospel. This is the central dispute and from it springs all other forms and attempts to offer some level of assurance because the promise of God is seen as not enough. Man tries to cut the perfect diamond, if you will, and ends up destroying it. Men must place all their faith on Him and His Gospel, and not look within, there and only there will he find peace. This is the most remarkable Good News!
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 5:22PM
"King Henry VIII is responsible for the deaths of over 70,000 Catholics including hundreds of priests and Bishops.
Queen Elizabeth I, had thousands of Catholics put to death in England. She ordered that Catholic Mary Queen of Scots be executed in 1587. She had thousands more killed in Ireland.
Oliver Cromwell is responsible for starting the English civil war and the subsequent beheading of Catholic King Charles I, and for the killing of thousands of Catholics in that war of 1642-1649.
Thousands of Catholics were murdered in Ireland by the English in the 19th century simply because they attended the Catholic Mass. The Protestant English redcoats were also responsible for confiscating the food from the Irish people and for leaving them only with potatoes which were blighted and unfit to eat. In the mid 19th century this caused the deaths by starvation of an estimated 1-1.5 million Irish Catholics, and the emigration of about 2 million more. It was a case of either leave the country or die of starvation."
Rich D| 5.6.11 @ 6:04PM
You are a plagiarist! You stole that whole post from a response to a yahoo question and posted it without attribution. Even the original post cited no source!
Do your own work or buzz off.
Frisbee| 5.6.11 @ 7:20PM
He put it in quotes.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 7:38PM
Of Course Not Richie Dork, I'm An Equestrian.
Your Buddy, Joe Biden's The Plagiarist.
Rich D| 5.8.11 @ 1:08AM
Ah, the hominem of a dry well. Frisbee's ignorant or flippant, but you seem to be beyond basic civility.
Whatever you need to win, you win it.
Frisbee| 5.13.11 @ 10:28PM
Definitely ignorant.
Rich D| 5.8.11 @ 1:03AM
Try it in your next journal article and see if it works.
Clint| 5.8.11 @ 9:13PM
Another Phoney School Marm.
Try Sticking Your Anti-Catholic Agenda Richie Dork.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:45PM
Last I looked, my degree was in European History with a concentration in medieval and renaissance history, and from a Jesuit university no less. So I don't think I can be accused of anti-Catholic bias when I say all of these figures are far too high, are unsubstantiated, and indiscriminately conflate executions for heresy with those for insurrection as well as deaths from open warfare.
As for the statements about the British in Ireland during the 19th century, just about every word of it is a lie, including "and" and "the".
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 9:43PM
It appears, the author of that quote was referring to "The 18th Century" 1798 Rebellion. "The 1798 rebellion was possibly the most concentrated outbreak of violence in Irish history, and resulted in thousands of deaths over the course of three months. Contemporary estimates put the death toll from 20,000 (Dublin Castle) to as many as 50,000[13] of which 2,000 were military and 1,000 loyalist civilians"
He was also referring to The Irish Potato Famine.
"Over the next ten years, more than 750,000 Irish died and another 2 million left their homeland for Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. Within five years, the Irish population was reduced by a quarter.
The Irish potato famine was not simply a natural disaster. It was a product of social causes. Under British rule, Irish Catholics were prohibited from entering the professions or even purchasing land. Instead, many rented small plots of land from absentee British Protestant landlords. Half of all landholdings were less than 5 acres in 1845."
You true scholar would have included those facts, instead of playing Lecturing Plastic Superior Academic Elitist Bloviator Games.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:42PM
"It appears, the author of that quote was referring to "The 18th Century" 1798 Rebellion"
I suppose it would surprise you to learn that most of the leaders of that rebellion, including Wolfe Tone, were actually Protestants, and that this was a nationalist, not a religious uprising?
"He was also referring to The Irish Potato Famine.
"Over the next ten years, more than 750,000 Irish died and another 2 million left their homeland for Great Britain, Canada, and the United States. Within five years, the Irish population was reduced by a quarter."
Your source would also do well to look at more recent and balanced scholarship that indicates a much more mixed response by the British government, essentially overwhelmed by the magnitude of the disaster. Beyond that, Irish victimology never held much attraction for me. I must have picked up that skepticism from one of my professors, Dr. Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University.
"You true scholar would have included those facts, instead of playing Lecturing Plastic Superior Academic Elitist Bloviator Games."
You mean I should just be an obnoxious lout like you, Clint? No thanks--I met more than enough of those at Georgetown as well.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 4:11AM
"It appears, the author of that quote was referring to "The 18th Century" 1798 Rebellion"
Tell that to The Irish Catholics, who did most the dying You Ivy Towered Academic Used Car Salesman..
"Contemporary estimates put the death toll from 20,000 (Dublin Castle) to as many as 50,000[13] of which 2,000 were military and 1,000 loyalist civilians"
Lots of us know of Quigley . He taught Slick Willie too. He also had a mancrush on Quigley.
I mean just what I said, You're A Lecturing Plastic Superior Academic Elitist Bloviator, Stuey.
What Part of Lecturing Plastic Superior Academic Elitist Bloviator, don't you get?
Hmmmm School Marm ?
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 4:34AM
Stuart is the same argument against himself,who wrote previously,
"I'd avoid Warren Carrol like the plague. His history is tendentious, his outlook bigoted, his theology definitely preconciliar and barely consistent with that of the Church of Rome."
And I say this as a Greek Catholic (just one of the reasons I loathe Warren Carrol, I suppose)."
You must think that we are as stupid as the undergraduate minds full of mush.who pay to listen to you bloviate
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 5:54AM
So, you Stuart, as a Greek Catholic Elitist Bloviatin' College Teacher, can loathe The Anti-Catholic Bigots, in your faux superior manner, bur We, The Great Unwashed Roman Catholics of the real world can't.
Go sell Your Plastic Elitist Act to The Sucker College Kiddies.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 9:17AM
"We, The Great Unwashed Roman Catholics of the real world can't."
They way you are trying right now, no, you can't.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:42AM
Oh yes we certainly can, self-absorbed overopionated elitist fop college teacher .
And, unlike your college victims, We're paying you what you're worth, Nothin'.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 9:16AM
"You must think that we are as stupid as the undergraduate minds full of mush.who pay to listen to you bloviate"
I'm pretty sure nobody could be as stupid as I think you are at this moment.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 9:44AM
I'm pretty sure that nobody could be as smart, as you pretend to be at this moment, self-absorbed college teacher blowhard .
Stuart Koehl| 5.8.11 @ 9:17PM
You're wrong, Clint. I really am as smart as you fear I am.
victor| 5.9.11 @ 3:15PM
Clint is not who he says he is, either.
DRed| 5.6.11 @ 6:28PM
I think you're all wrong.
Occam, if you're still looking for book recommendations, I read 'The Reformation' by Diarmaid MacCulloch last year, and found it to be well written, non-polemical, and about as comprehensive as one volume on such a complicated subject can be.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 7:56PM
Thank you, DRed.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:44PM
Try Jaroslav Pelikan's "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. V: The Reformation". Written by a Lutheran who later became Orthodox, the man is a master of the material and presents it in a very accessible manner.
RCV| 5.6.11 @ 7:30PM
Dear Lord: I thought we had gotten over these rabid "Catholics are the Anti-Christ"/"Protestants will burn in Hell" fights that pain you so to hear. Please bring to your Christian Church -- all those who pray to you in Catholic services, all those who pray to you in the myriad of Protestant denominations, all those who pray to you individually without adherence to a sect -- the love and peace that you brought to earth in the person of Jesus Christ.
Occam's Tool| 5.6.11 @ 8:05PM
What a beautiful thought, RCV.
Everyone, we do have an enemy---and it's not each other. Europe is dying, and we will be left alone. Our enemies will kill us no matter if we are Protestant, Catholic, or Jew. There are people out there who thinks it's dandy to behead a 3 month old child. I know that offends almost all of the bloggers on this site.
That's what I worry about. Outside of taking care of very sick people, my worry is for my children and the world they would grow up in. People like Margie, Dr Right, RCV, etc. would like it to be a safe world for my babies. John (Achmed) and Clint would like to see them killed.
Everything else to me is really just a matter of angels on pins, folks. Everything else. We are in a war to the death. Sorry to be so Manichean about it, but when I go over these facts I am left with no alternative.
For example: the most popular name in the UK in 2010 is (blank)? Therefore, what will the most popular Boys' name in our militarily strongest ally in the year 2025, and what will the rape rate/violent crime rate in the UK be, and how will the other effects of that name selection affect our relations with that ally?
By the way, Clint, you represent NO Catholics I know. None. Zip.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 8:52PM
By The Way, Israel Firster Obsessed Fanatic Tool Job, You Represent Traitor Bastards I know about, like Jonathan Pollard & Ben Ami Kadish.
Now, go skipping off with your Boyfriend ObamaBoy RCV.
W| 5.6.11 @ 8:56PM
ot, disagree with you about marge. yes,she is strong on israel, but her bigotry and hate about catholics is insane. how can you not see that? dr. right is less insane than marge. i like rcv. do not always agree with his liberal politics, but he states it rationally. substitute the word "jews" for "catholics" and you will know how they really think about jews.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 9:57PM
Your bigotry and hatred of Bible believing Christians is ungodly.
You do not know the Lord.
W| 5.6.11 @ 10:23PM
maybe i don't, but i know your type
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 10:37PM
And God knows yours.
W| 5.6.11 @ 10:37PM
do not hate christians, do read the bible, but cannot stand the intolerant, self rightenous, narrow minded views posted here. they are exactly the same mindset as the mullahs that believe only they know God, and everyone who disagrees has a false religion. enough already, try reading something on tolerance, and keep your bigotry to yourself.
Margie| 5.6.11 @ 11:18PM
Real Christians have no toleration for lies, and especially lies purported to claim Christianity. Especially false doctrines that claim to be the only "true church" and are outright disgusting teaches not taught by God.
If you knew God, you would be outraged by these things. Christians, thousands upon thousands, and for literally centuries were put to death by the Papists because they REFUSED to bow to these false doctrines.
It is serious business, W. The bigotry truly lies with those who are against the Scriptures and Christ's own teachings~ and toward those who practice them.
The cult of Catholicism could not be anymore prejudiced, hateful and bigoted toward God's Holy Word!
You want to talk about narrow minded?
If a Christian is one who is supposed to love the Word of God and a Catholic hates them for it, who is the narrow minded one?
Christians do not keep to themselves. God didn't call us to do that and in fact He commanded us to let His light shine through us, and to preach His Gospel.
Catholics don't like that.
Well, that's too bad.
We serve God, not man.
W| 5.7.11 @ 12:29PM
i keep forgetting you have a direct line to God, and are the authority on God. must be the insane bigotry, self righteneous, intolerance that makes me forget. look up tolerance, understanding, and love thy neighbor in you computer index to your bible, read it, and go away. maybe Belfast or Tehran will suit you,
mames| 5.8.11 @ 8:40PM
Adherence to the doctrines of Christ and the Scriptures is the vital responsibility of every Christian. Contending with those who do not believe these teachings is to be done, as Paul said, with all Love, respect and kindness. Christians have an absolute responsibility to confront error but in love and respect . There can be no toleration of mullah like control of fellow humans by using coercion or physical harm _ EVER. The only thing I can say to someone who, after having listened to my presentation of God's Gospel and Word, who now disagrees with me is "thank you for listening and God bless you". If as God's Word plainly teaches GOD brings people to faith through His Word we have no right to think we are in control. We are simply to deliver The Word and God does the rest. Bringing fallen sinful, spiritually dead men to faith requires GOD"S power to perform that resurrection. The resurrection that Rev. of Jesus Christ calls "the first resurrection." The Bible describes someone coming to faith as a miracle and we men cannot perform miracles. W, I think you are misguided in your understanding of Christ but only God's Word can convince you otherwise certainly not this poor sinful believer in the Gospel of The Christ. I mean get serious! :) I do pray Christ would revel himself to you in His fullness and that you would receive Him. God's blessings W
W| 5.6.11 @ 10:20PM
agree with you rcv, but notice that whenever there is any article the merely mentions anything conncected to catholics, the ususal suspects (marge,dr right) pop up with their usaul rants of anti-catholic bigotry masquerading as some bible theology. it is tiresome to hear the same insanity without responding.
with all the important issues of terrorism, war, the economy, these people are fixated on who reads the bible properly. and they quick to cite some bible verse, like a lawyer citing a string of cases that when you read the case it does not support their claim.
and if you ask them to honestly state their views of jews, they will say yours is a false religion. if someoney is an anti-catholic bigot, they are usually also an anti-semite. they may support israel because it is part of their biblical end of the world scenario, not because they are tolerant of jews. if you are tolerant of jews then you are tolerant of all religions, and do not mock them, or call them cults. it is embarrasing to have to read this garbage.
RCV| 5.6.11 @ 10:56PM
W: I have spoken out often against the anti-Catholic rants that routinely pop up whenever TAS runs an article of praise on some good, Godly person who happens to be a Catholic (like JPII, bless his soul), as vociferously as I have against the anti- semitism of Clint/Tim and that vile Islamicist who popped up this week. It pains me to witness this hatred in the name of our loving Creator.
Ted| 5.7.11 @ 6:28PM
We had an Islamist? When? I missed that one. That would have been a real treat!
RCV| 5.7.11 @ 8:03PM
Click down to the article on the Palestinians
mames| 5.8.11 @ 8:49PM
You don't have to read this stuff just ignore it. I disagree with almost all of Catholic doctrine and can present strong Biblical argument as to why and it may sound offensive to some insecure Catholics but I can assure you many Catholic friends of mine, Brothers and Priests included are not in the least offended that I believe and teach counter to them. We disagree and we keep trying to convince each other but I still love them and they me. I remain concerned for their salvation but I cannot MAKE the believe, I am not God. Some of the best evenings I have ever spent were on the golf course with a couple Brothers from St Marys in South Bend debating and golfing as we go.
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 7:51PM
This has been one more attack on The Catholic Church by The Usual Pavlovian Slobbering Anti-Catholic Rant Squad & You Know It ObamaBoy RCv.
If You're A Real Good Boy & Say Your Prayers, God Will Cure You Of Your Obama Lust.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:48PM
Yeah, but as I constantly have to pray, God, please protect me from my allies, I can handle my enemies by myself.
This is my subtle hint, Clint, that I don't like you, your tone, your ignorance, your vitriol or the way you bait your opponents. You could, if you wanted, present reasoned arguments in defense of your position. You prefer to toss manure--but, let me be blunt--you just aren't very good at it. No better, in fact, than either Marge or Dr. Right.
So, as my daughter used to say, when she was about four years old, "If you can't say anything, don't say anything".
Clint| 5.6.11 @ 9:18PM
Here is my not so subtle hint, Stuart, that I don't like you, you're tone, you're pseudo-intellectual faux elitism, your school marm lecturin', or the way you attempt to play superior critic & attempt play off both sides against the middle. You're A Non-Catholic Bloviator from The Groves of Academe, who's own religion isn't being personally attacked by this outright & flagrantly chronic Anti-Catholic Bigoted Crap, which these Anti-Catholic Agendists spew anytime a subject even remotely touches on Catholicism.
So, as my coach used to say, after we ass kicked another team," They talked a good Game, but couldn't walk their talk ".
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:53PM
"Here is my not so subtle hint, Stuart, that I don't like you, you're tone, you're pseudo-intellectual faux elitism, your school marm lecturin', or the way you attempt to play superior critic & attempt play off both sides against the middle."
What you mean is you don't like my presentation of the facts getting in the way of your snark-fest.
"You're A Non-Catholic Bloviator from The Groves of Academe, who's own religion isn't being personally attacked by this outright & flagrantly chronic Anti-Catholic Bigoted Crap, which these Anti-Catholic Agendists spew anytime a subject even remotely touches on Catholicism."
Actually, I AM a Catholic--otherwise, why am I commemorating Benedict XVI, the Pope of Rome, at every Liturgy I attend? I'm just not a ROMAN Catholic, but by now have become quite used to RCs (Real Catholics?) acting as though we are the red-headed sibling in a family of blonds.
Your frustrations obviously come from your inability to respond dispassionately and factually to idiots like Dr. Right and Marge, and even Clint, which works so much better than throwing a temper tantrum at them. I much prefer to let Marge and Right toss hissy fits, but they simply can't repudiate what I say--and neither, for that matter, can you.
So there are a couple of options open to you. One would be just to ignore them--after all, their stupidity is on full display for all to see without you contributing to the miasma; or to actually do your homework and come back with something along the lines of "Well, yes, Marge, but what about ___ and ____ and ____? And aren't you forgetting ___ and ___? And, oh, by the way, Marge, you neglected to answer the question I asked you".
Granted, takes work, but works better. People might even think you're some sort of egg-headed geek.
"So, as my coach used to say, after we ass kicked another team," They talked a good Game, but couldn't walk their talk ".
But you don't seem to realize the only ass you are kicking is your own. I don't mind that, but some of your kicks come perilously close to my head on their way to your hindquarters. Which is why I think you should cool it and let someone who actually knows history and theology do the heavy lifting for you.
Yes, I am being VERY condescending, but believe me, you've earned it.
Margie| 5.7.11 @ 12:45AM
Stuey's in a tizzie over 2 measly Christians because his own arrogance is on display for all to see.
To see how he hates Christians who abide by the Word of God!
Now he has to teach the other scum on how to react to the 2 measly Christians because he is so utterly powerless, like he is.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 1:04AM
No, I just got tired of interesting discussions being hijacked by morons, so now I am going to keep my pimp arm strong and bitch-slap ANYONE who gets out of line. A dirty job, but someone's got to do it, and I guess it's gonna be me.
victor| 5.7.11 @ 12:15PM
Stuart Koohl:
"I am going to keep my pimp arm strong and bitch-slap ANYONE who gets out of line."
Ah, yes, Prefect Stuart Koohl reporting for duty.
Ready to maintain and defend the integrity of the faith and to examine and proscribe errors and false doctrines and administer any and all punishments.
Just the sort of work that is best suited for someone who loves the Church as much as you do.
Anyone who gets in the way of the Church will be dealt with much the same way they were dealt with in the good old days, right Stuart?
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Stuart Koehl| 5.8.11 @ 9:20PM
I've been bitch-slapping my fellow Catholics, too. It's not theology that bothers me--I can have substantive theological discussions with anyone--it's the mindless bigotry on both sides, the willful ignorance, the resistance both to logic and to facts, that appalls me as a Christian and as an intelligent human being. So, Victor, I'm an equal opportunity enforcer, and if you get out of line, you'll feel my pimp arm, too.
Margie| 5.10.11 @ 6:55PM
You are not a Christian, Stuey.
You are a despicable liar.
You serve your master, the Devil very well.
You are a threat to no one, and especially not to those of us who serve the Truth and not man.
You reject Jesus Christ and choose to obey your master, the Devil because you obey the words of the Apostates who also serve their master, Satan.
Since the teachings of the Apostates are against the Word and Will of God, why do you choose them in place of the true gospel of Jesus Christ?
"For whoever is ashamed of Me and of My Words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of Man also be ashamed, when He comes in the Glory of His Father with the Holy Angels." Mk. 8:38.
http://www.hissheep.org/cathol.....hings.html
List of Catholic False Teachings and Dates Instituted
1. Prayer for the dead and the sign of the cross. (It's death, then judgment: Heb.9:7; Rev.20:12-15, 21:8)
310
2. Wax candles used in church. (No place in the bible are they used except as a light source in the old testament tabernacle which had no windows)
320
3. Veneration of saints and angels (forbidden Col.2:18)
about 375
4. The mass adopted as a daily celebration (Jesus died once for all men. Heb.7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:1-4, 10-14.)
394
5. The worship of Mary and use of the term "mother of god", originated at the council of Ephesus. (This puts Mary above god. worship of anyone or thing other than god is forbidden. ex.20:3-5; 34:14; isa.2:8). Nowhere in scripture is Mary shown to be any different or other than any other woman. the only difference is her being chosen to be the one by which Jesus would come into the world. Mary called Jesus her savior, she could not be saved with him, as all others. Lk.1:47.
431
6. Priests began dressing differently than the laity
500
7. The doctrine of purgatory established by Gregory the great (There is only 2 places mentioned in the bible where men go after death; [paradise and hell before the cross], heaven and hell after the cross: Lk.16:19-31; 23:43)
593
8. The Latin language to be used for worship and prayer in church imposed by pope Gregory I (forbidden 1Cor.14:9)
600
9. The practice of directing prayers to Mary or dead saints. Jesus told us to pray to the father in his name. no place in scripture gives such an example. jn.14:13-14; 15:16
600
10. The title of pope of universal bishop was first been given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas. (He did this to spite bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory I, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface iii, first assumed title "pope." Jesus did not appoint peter to the headship of the apostles [Mt.23:6-12; Lk.22:24-26; Eph.1:22-23; Col.1:18; 1 Cor.3:11] nor is there any mention in history, that peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years. Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that peter ever was in Rome.)
610
11. The kissing of the popes feet, a pagan custom (kissing the feet of emperors). scripture forbids such practices. Acts 10:25-26; Rev.19:10; 22:9.
709
12. The temporal power of the pope. (When Pepin, the usurper of the throne of France, descended into Italy, called by pope Stephen ii, to war against the Italian Lombards, he defeated them and gave the city of Rome and surrounding territory to the pope. Jesus expressly forbade such a thing, and he himself refused worldly kingship. Matt.4:8-9; 20:25-28; John 6:15; 18:36-38.)
750
13. Worship of cross, of images and relics was authorized. (This was by order of dowager empress Irene of Constantinople, who first caused to pluck the eyes of her own son, Constantine vi, and then called a church council at the request of Hadrian i, pope of Rome at that time. such practices are idolatry. Lev.26:1; Numb.33:52.)
788
14. Holy water mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest was authorized.
850
15. The veneration of St. Joseph began. (This is idolatry. verses in #9 and #13 above.)
890
16. The baptism of bells was instituted by pope John xiv.
965
17. Canonization of dead saints, first by pope John xv. (Being a saint has to do with being sanctified, set apart to the lord, as his. all true believers are saints, and men don't select them. 1 Cor.1:2; 2 Cor.2:1; eph.1:1; phil.1:1; col.1:2. These letters were not written to dead saints.)
995
18. Fasting on Fridays and during lent were imposed. (Imposed by popes said to be interested in the commerce of fish. (bull, or permit to ear meat), some authorities say, began in the year 700. this is against the plain teaching of scripture. Matt.15:10-11; 1 Cor.10:25-26; 1 Tim.4:1-5.)
998
19. The mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century. the bible teaches the sacrifice of Christ was offered once and for all, and is not to be repeated, but only commemorated in the lord's supper. Heb.7:27; 9:12, 25-28; 10:1-4; 10-14.
1000's
20. The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by pope Hildebrand, Boniface vii. (Jesus imposed no such rule, nor did any of the apostles. on the contrary, St. peter was a married man, and St. Paul says that bishops were to have wife and children. Matt.8:14-15; 1 Tim.3:2,5,12; 4:1-3; Titus 1:5-6.)
1079
21. The rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by peter the hermit (copied from Hindus and mohammedans). (The counting of prayers is a pagan practice and is expressly condemned by Christ. Mt.6:5-13. )
1090
22. The inquisition of heretics was instituted by the council of Verona (Jesus never taught the use of force to spread the gospel but instead to love our enemies: Mt.5:44)
1184
23. The sale of indulgence, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin, began. (Christianity, as taught in the bible, condemns such a thing, and is was the protest against such traffic that brought on the Protestant reformation in the 16th century.)
1190
24. The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed by pope innocent III. (By this doctrine the priest pretends to perform a daily miracle by changing a wafer into the body of Christ, and then he pretends to eat Him alive in the presence of his people during mass. the bible condemns such absurdities; for the lord's supper is simply a memorial of the sacrifice of Christ. Lk.22:19-20; John 6:35; 1 Cor.11:26. )
1215
25. Confession of sins to the priest at least once a year was instituted by pope innocent iii, in the lateran council. (The bible tells us to confess our sins directly to god. psa.51:1-10; Lk.7:48; 15:21; John 1:8-9.)
1215
26. The adoration of the wafer (host) was decreed by pope Honorius so the roman church worships a god made by human hands. This is plain idolatry and contrary to the spirit of the gospel john 4:24. decreed.
1220
27. The bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the index of forbidden books by the council of Valencia. (Jesus commanded that the scriptures should by read by all. John 5:39; 1 Tim.3:15-17.)
1229
28. The scapular was invented by Simon stock (English monk) .(It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. this is fetishism.)
1287
29. The roman church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the council of Constance. (The bible commands us to celebrate the lord's supper with unleavened bread and the fruit of the vine. Matt.26:27; 1 Cor.11:26-29.)
1414
30. The doctrine of purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by council of Florence. (There is not one word in the bible that would teach the purgatory of priests. the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sins. 1 John 1:7-9; 2:1-2; John 5:24; Romans 8:1.)
1439
31. The doctrine of sacraments affirmed. (The bible says that Christ instituted only two ordinances, baptism and the lord's supper. Mt.28:19-20; 26:26-28.)
1439
32. The Ave Maria, part of the last half . (It was completed 50 years afterward and finally approved by pope Sixus v, a the end of the 16th century.)
1508
33. The council of Trent, declared that tradition is of equal authority with the bible. (By tradition is meant human teachings. The Pharisees believed the same way, and Jesus condemned them, for by teaching human tradition, they nullified the commandments of god. Mk.7:7-13; col.2:8; rev.22:18.)
1545
34. The apocryphal books were added to the bible also by the council of Trent (books not recognized as canonical by the Jewish church). Rev.22:8-9.
1546
35. The creed of pope Pius iv was imposed as the official creed 1560 years after Christ and the apostles.
1560
36. The immaculate conception of the virgin mary was proclaimed by pope pius ix in the year.(The bible states that all men, with the sole exception of christ, are sinners. Mary herself had need of a savior. Rom.3:23; 5:12; psa.51:5; lk.1:30,46,47.)
1854
37. Pope Pius ix proclaimed the dogma of papal infallibility. (This is blasphemy and the sign of the apostasy and the antichrist 2 thess.2:2-12; rev.17:1-9; 13:5-8,18.)
1870
38. Pope Pius x, condemned together with "modernish", all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the church
1907
39. Pope Pius xi condemned the public schools.
1930
Nick| 5.11.11 @ 1:40AM
Margie,
Did you notice that Pastor Renz's list doesn't really match up with Mr. Cloud's list of the teachings of the early Church Fathers, which you linked to last week?
mames| 5.8.11 @ 8:56PM
One Christian to another, listen to Paul, deliver with love and respect. They may still protest but without validity. Biblical doctrine and Roman doctrine are counter to one another and none of us can argue or use coercion to bring anyone into the Kingdom. Roman Catholicism is in fact anti Christian in so many ways, I agree, but a Pauline approach is demanded by scripture.
Stuart Koehl| 5.9.11 @ 9:00AM
Silly, stupid, ignorant, deluded fool.
victor| 5.9.11 @ 1:34PM
Despite all the trials and tribulations that Paul was subjected to by the Romans, he did not follow your advice:
"so now I am going to keep my pimp arm strong and bitch-slap ANYONE who gets out of line."
He preached Jesus Christ to all who would listen and to those that would or could not accept Christ.
He stayed the course till he was finally martyred by the Romans.
Stuart Koehl| 5.9.11 @ 8:26PM
"he did not follow your advice:"
Tell it to those wacky Corinthians--they and you share much in common.
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 4:55AM
I mean just what I said, I don't like you, you're tone, you're pseudo-intellectual faux elitism, your school marm lecturin', or the way you attempt to play superior critic & attempt play off both sides against the middle."
What part can't you grasp pseudo-intellectual bloviator?
Clint| 5.7.11 @ 6:04AM
Yeah Sure Stuart, Like You, as A Lecturing Bloviator "Do The Heavy Lifting " for Our Real American Combat Warriors, in the Field.
Get Bent, Worse Than A REMF.
Stuart Koehl| 5.8.11 @ 9:21PM
If you knew me, you would find your last remark ironic, to say the least.
Adam DeVille | 5.6.11 @ 8:01PM
Much of Benedict's rapprochement with the Orthodox is indeed striking, as the author notes, but the groundwork for this was clearly laid by Pope John Paul II as I demonstrate elsewhere (http://easternchristianbooks.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-pope-john-paul-ii-and-eastern.html)
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 8:59PM
Unfortunately, John Paul II's unprecedented outreach to the Orthodox was doomed from the start by two factors, neither really of his making. The first was his origin: as a Pole, he would never be trusted by any Russian, and without the Moscow Patriarchate's cooperation, there can be no movement towards unity.
The second was the end of the Soviet Union and the emergence of the Greek Catholic (or "Uniate") Churches from the catacombs in Ukraine, Belarus, and Romania. This came as a great shock to the Russians, who had forcibly suppressed the Greek Catholic Churches in the late 1940s and integrated its adherents into the Orthodox Church. It also came as a great shock to Rome, which had believed the assurances of the Russian Orthodox Church that the Greek Catholics were happily assimilated into the Orthodox Church, a "final solution" to the Uniate Problem.
The emergence of the Uniates (a pejorative term, but I can use it because I am one) created a stumbling block to the joint ecumenical dialogue between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which until that point had been making steady progress towards addressing the one truly substantive issue dividing the two Churches--the nature and exercise of the Petrine Ministry.
Over the course of a decade, it took a series of meetings culminating with the Ravenna Agreement to put the Uniate Problem to bed, allowing the Dialogue to go back to addressing substantive issues. But no progress was going to take place in any case under the Papacy of John Paul II, simply because the senior Russian Orthodox clergy saw him as the author of all their woes, a Pole, and therefore not to be trusted. Four hundred years of ethnic animosity simply could not be overcome by any amount of good will on John Paul II's part.
As a German, Benedict has a particularly useful background--surprisingly, Russians don't hate Germans anywhere near as viscerally as they do Poles, and they have great respect for German intellect.
Myself, I am doubly encouraged by a statement Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger made in a speech at Graz in 1974, reiterated in his 1985 book, "Elements of Catholic Theology":
"The Catholic Church can require no more [concerning the primacy of Rome] of the Orthodox than was believed and lived by the undivided Church in the first millennium. All that would be required of the Orthodox in turn is that they do not object to legitimate theological developments in the Latin Church during the second millennium".
RCV| 5.6.11 @ 9:43PM
Thanks, Stuart, for that insightful exposition. I wish Benedict well in his striving to unify the Church, and repair it's relationships with people of good will who share other faiths.
Religious intolerance and bigotry seems to me to be a conceitful effort to "own" God for oneself, an effort to try to deny God's ownership of all His creation and His prerogative to hear whom He wants to hear and make His own judgment on His terms, not ours.
Stuart Koehl| 5.6.11 @ 11:56PM
I've been doing my bit for the ecumenical dialogue for many years now as a member of the Society of St. John Chrysostom and the Orientale Lumen Conferences, which have been held on both coasts, in Western Europe and in Constantinople over the past seventeen years. These conferences bring together Orthodox, Greek Catholic and Roman Catholic scholars, clergy and laymen to study and pray together regarding the issues that both unite as well as divide us, looking forward to the day when we might be one, as Christ and the Father are One.
RCV| 5.7.11 @ 12:32AM
I share that sentiment. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, but am now an Anglo-Catholic. I often go to services at Orthodox, Roman, Maronite and other churches (as well as not infrequent visits to synagogues on the Sabbath). While I reject the doctrine of papal infallibility, I respect the Holy Father as the spiritual leader of Christendom and would love to see a unified Catholic Church one day. Thank you for your work toward reconciliation.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 1:32AM
I correct myself: where I said "Ravenna Agreement", I should have said "Balamand Agreement". The Ravenna Agreement came out of the latest meetings of the Joint International Theological Commission, and addressed the issue of the relationship between primacy and conciliarity in the Church. Paragraphs 35-39, dealing with the issue of Ecumenical Councils, is particularly interesting in its implications.
Stuart Koehl| 5.7.11 @ 1:09AM
"While I reject the doctrine of papal infallibility,"
We Greek Catholics are not too fond of it either. We tend to look upon the Pope as you do, a spiritual leader and focus of unity within the Church.
"Thank you for your work toward reconciliation."
That will happen when it happens, and when it does, it will be through the divine grace and action of the Holy Spirit, and not by the act of man alone. May God hasten the day. Nobody quite feels the pangs of separation the way we Greek Catholics do--we are like the children of an acrimonious divorce, torn by both sides, hoping against hope that our parents will get back together. We wish nothing more than to disappear, because, when communion is restored between the Orthodox and Latin Churches, we will be free to go home, to be reabsorbed into our Orthodox Mother Churches.
Until that time, our vocation is to live as fully Orthodox Christians while in communion with the Church of Rome. It is a lonely and difficult task, because we are to some extent distrusted and looked down upon by both sides.
Mistral| 5.7.11 @ 11:47AM
Where Roman Catholic liturgy is concerned it was John Paul II (RIP) who implemented the previous pontiff's process of liturgical banalisation,.This he did with inculturating the Mass to include a wide variety of praxis forbidden by The Church's own rules on what is licit and illicit, valid and invalid in liturgical procedures. Thus, rock and roll, dancing and so forth with altar girls and laywomen handling the "sacred vessels" became the new norms. Together with all of the novel ideas incorporated into the Novus Ordo style liturgical banality has become the order of the day in the modern Catholic church. We can find bishops and presbyters at circus masses, cheese masses, clown masses, teddy-bear masses and so on by the thousands every year. The modern liturgy is a sad mockery of what it used to be.
Beatifying John Paul II was carried out in spite of the fact he and the predeccesor he admired above all, the communist-sympathising and practising homosexual Paul VI (RIP) have done more than any other to destroy the liturgy of the church and to disembody it beyond all recognition. No wonder, therefore, the lex credendi of the modern catholic has been disorientated by the novel post-conciliar lex supplicandi.
Anyhting Pope Benedict XVI does to attempt to correct the disastrous tilt away from this irrevent melee of liturgical chaos is mostly met with episcopal and prebyterial opposition, non-co-operation or complete contempt preferring liturgy that can be twisted and manipulated to suit the moods and vogues of the age in which we live.
The problems talked about in this article are thus not confined to secular society but they are omnipresent throughout the postmodern catholic church which is in utter chaos in most respects today.
J. Alfred Prufrock| 5.7.11 @ 11:57AM
Thank you, Samuel Gregg, for this luminous rebuttal to the Economist etal. Your mere handful of words are like flashes of lightening, illuminating the text of our Holy Father, a text so clear and profound, but unfortunately, so shrouded in darkness for so many.
Oscar Wilde| 5.7.11 @ 12:25PM
Yes, you shine like a shaft of gold, while all around is darkness.
Or, it could be a stream of bat's piss.
http://www.dailymotion.com/vid.....-wilde_fun
Richard Baker| 5.7.11 @ 2:31PM
Guess a day doesn't go by where good, old Margie doesn't go out of her way, in her inimitable God-like fashion, to insult anyone who doesn't think, interpret, or agree with her. Humorous as well a blindered, that's our girl. Meanwhile, the present Pope is trying to reconcile ancient differences and animosities while she spends her time moving in just the opposite direction.
Mimi| 5.7.11 @ 2:36PM
WOW....We had better come together, soon! With SHARIA in the wings... their "SUPREMACY" and boldness, ruthless killing for un-believers of ISLAM...After reading all these partisan POSTS....WE all need some HOPE and compassion for one another and LOVE as we know the FATHER asks that of us.....LOVE ONE ANOTHER AS I HAVE LOVED YOU "!!!
John II| 5.7.11 @ 9:52PM
Not a peep from anyone for more than six hours. Whew! Is it safe to come out yet?
Anyhow, I disagree with Mimi. I've read all the posts, and not all are partisan. On the other hand, I agree with Mimi. Allow me now to prophesy:
People of the Book, I enjoin you solemnly!
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.
Woe to you when all men speak well of you, for so their fathers did to the false prophets.
I say to you that can hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you!
And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
You who call down anathema on Holy Mother Church, regularize yourselves and return to the faith of your forefathers, abiding in the bosom of Holy Mother Church. Cast aside your cheesy tracts and take up the wisdom of old. Read the Greats, while sipping on a decent claret.
Yea, and you who defend Holy Mother Church in angry and dissonant tones, behave not like the infidel but abandon aspersion and take solace in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, with humility in the face of a Truth you never made up.
For I say to you all, the reckoning is nigh, and we must all set aside petty differences and join forces against the depredations of the renegade Obamanation.
And now back to "Babette's Feast" (1987), in which the descendants of pagan Vikings in a small Danish coastal town discover the bounteous love of Christ Himself in a sumptuous French meal of many courses and fine wine prepared by a mysterious cook of quiet depth and long-suffering disposition.
Margie| 5.10.11 @ 6:42PM
JohnII,
I know you mean well, but light has no fellowship with darkness, and the twain shall never meet in the middle.
And liars still go to Hell. Some are outright liars, some are deceived, and some are just having "fun".
I personally believe that you are careless in that you choose to take the words of the apostates to your heart rather than the Words of God and the Apostles.
I know that you're a learned man. If so, then why is it that you choose to do this?
Do you not know that Jesus says that in order to be able to enter into His Kingdom, you must obey His Words?
The Catholic Religion is a lie and you have allowed yourself to be fooled.
I pray for you, that you will change your mind (repent) before it's too late, and receive the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
He waits to be gracious to you.
Chris Martel| 5.8.11 @ 3:54AM
The Pope got this one right! Bishop Sheen in 1961 on his tv show "It's a wonderful life", warned us of what was coming. Now it is here to roost, how do we deal with it? The Church is under attack, our country is under attack, and we have fools and jackals in the halls of power who can't wait to show our islamic "friends" how nice we are! Might as well snuggle up to a rattlesnake!
Islam will bring much suffering and more, and sooner than you think! There are Christians who have been jailed for preaching the Gospel, in AMERICA! that's right, in Dearborn Michigan, or as the local Americans call it "Dearbornastan"! Pastor Jones of burn a koran fame, was locked up and forced to pay a peace bond, all this before he got to say a word! His rights were abrogated, not for what he said, but for what the muslims would do if he told them the truth!! That is called FEAR, and it has no place in our great country. Police Chief Haddad thought it best to put this man on trial, literally, he seated a jury and put the man on a mock trial, I am not making this up.
Welcome to the USSA!
Mimi| 5.8.11 @ 2:14PM
Yes, Charles......I recall in my youth...The NUNS talking about Persecution... and with the knowledge that it would never happen to us , it was for the old early christian days.
It seems lately , that very possibility has entered my mind if Sharia vs. Christianity will become a time of CHOOSING in our FREE country. Look what is happening to Christians and Jews in the MIDDLE EAST....not only Persecution but also Martyrdom!!!...We must cling hard to our faith!
Stuart Koehl| 5.8.11 @ 9:26PM
What's with the. . . elipses. . . which are used. . . by normal people. . . to indicate that . . .material has been omitted. The SAME thing could be said about the EXCESSIVE USE of CAPITALIZATION which . . . look LIKE nothing. . . so much as the RANTINGS of Queen VICTORIA at her . . . most florid and histrionic.
If you want to be taken seriously, full sentences, coherent thoughts and proper use of capitalization and punctuation.
Margie| 5.10.11 @ 6:36PM
Pompous ass Stuey thinks he is taken seriously, but he isn't.
He rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ for the words of the Apostates.
Leave Mimi alone.
Her posts are heartfelt, genuine and always RIGHT ON.
Unlike yours which are disgusting, filled with lies, and make Ckint/Tim* look like a nice guy.
Stuart Koehl| 5.10.11 @ 8:47PM
You mean I have your number, Marge? It wasn't wasn't that hard. Just as there are no original sins, there are no original heresies--and you prove both.
Margie| 5.10.11 @ 10:10PM
You "have my number?" LOL.
What a fool.
What's wrong with the gospel of Jesus Christ. not good enough for you, punk?
Stuart Koehl| 5.11.11 @ 7:53AM
Christ is risen from the dead,
Trampling down death by death,
And to those in the tombs
Bestowing life.
This is the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Khristos anesti!
Alithos anesti!
Christos voskrese!
Voiistinu voskrese!
Christ is risen!
Indeed He is risen!
Deano| 5.8.11 @ 8:18PM
Absolutely fascinating dialog... until dissention into name calling. Makes it easy to recognize those of faith and reason. Thank you all!!
Dee See| 5.8.11 @ 11:02PM
Afraid the Catholic Church has been massively
infiltrated and compromised for many decades.
Simple truth.
For more simple truth, break ranks with your
Rockefeller 'World Council of Churches' outlet
and its 'compliancy' programming and tattling
on behalf of Globalism and the EUGENICS
agenda.
Download and STUDY everything you can find
by John Calvin, John Bunyan etc..
STUDY it after praying for proper God given insight.
Start your own small circle of scripture study.
AGAIN, keep it small, disciplined and honest.
BEWARE like the plague ---ALLLLL crowd pleasing Christianoid 'spiritual' movements
and outfits.
It's all set-up to deceive you and disgrace genuine
revealed gospel truth.
Get the TVs and radio ---and, if possible, the surveillance tool PCs out of all your private
space (home, bedroom, living room etc.).
REALLY
Joe O'Leary | 5.10.11 @ 4:31AM
Sycophancy is a major contributor to the corruption of Catholicism and its papal court.
Nick| 5.11.11 @ 1:16AM
Margie,
You never responded to my comments, in the Kephas/Rock discussion of ours. I'm really interested in your thoughts.
Here is the link again:
http://spectator.org/blog/2011.....y#comments