RHOLOGY SAID: It is totally licit for us to part ways on many subjects.
How do you know when it is licit to disagree with the Pope and when it is not?
what does it mean to "repent"? What is "baptism"?
Repent is "metanoia" in the Greek and signifies turning away. From sin and the old man, specifically.
Baptism is what an adult does upon repenting and putting his faith in Christ, and carries all sorts of other meaning.
I don't get it; what's so hard about these? I'm sure you've read the NT. Why didn't you look there to answer your question?
There is real disagreement among Christians.
What is the connection between this statement and the previous one? So what? Do you presume that some people don't get things wrong, or that disagreement necessarily leads to unclarity of explanation? If it does, what of the many internal divisions within RCC?
Who's to say that really constitutes baptism, repentance, belief, salvation, and so on?
The Holy Spirit, in the Bible.
The Roman hierarchy isn't necessary for communion with Christ.
That's not what Cyprian and Boniface said.
These propositions are not nearly as simple as you make them seem. There is real disagreement among Christians. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be dozens of non-Protestant sects. Who's to say that really constitutes submission to the Magisterium?
The Roman hierarchy...is merely a necessary evil
Wow, the only thing I'd change about that is to remove the "necessary". The rest is greatly appreciated.
God Himself could not prevent a monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances!
Why do you not have a problem with a "monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances" but do have a problem with some levels of disagreement among believers, given the circumstances?
If...the papacy was permanently and utterly erased, I believe the Church would remain united.
Could you please define "united"? Since you lack monolithic beliefs on many important doctrines, as you yourself have even illustrated here, what real meaning does that word have?
How do you know when it is licit to disagree with the Pope and when it is not?
what does it mean to "repent"? What is "baptism"?
Repent is "metanoia" in the Greek and signifies turning away. From sin and the old man, specifically.
Baptism is what an adult does upon repenting and putting his faith in Christ, and carries all sorts of other meaning.
I don't get it; what's so hard about these? I'm sure you've read the NT. Why didn't you look there to answer your question?
There is real disagreement among Christians.
What is the connection between this statement and the previous one? So what? Do you presume that some people don't get things wrong, or that disagreement necessarily leads to unclarity of explanation? If it does, what of the many internal divisions within RCC?
Who's to say that really constitutes baptism, repentance, belief, salvation, and so on?
The Holy Spirit, in the Bible.
The Roman hierarchy isn't necessary for communion with Christ.
That's not what Cyprian and Boniface said.
These propositions are not nearly as simple as you make them seem. There is real disagreement among Christians. If there wasn't, there wouldn't be dozens of non-Protestant sects. Who's to say that really constitutes submission to the Magisterium?
The Roman hierarchy...is merely a necessary evil
Wow, the only thing I'd change about that is to remove the "necessary". The rest is greatly appreciated.
God Himself could not prevent a monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances!
Why do you not have a problem with a "monstrous bureaucracy, given the circumstances" but do have a problem with some levels of disagreement among believers, given the circumstances?
If...the papacy was permanently and utterly erased, I believe the Church would remain united.
Could you please define "united"? Since you lack monolithic beliefs on many important doctrines, as you yourself have even illustrated here, what real meaning does that word have?
RHOLOGY SAID:I put great trust in a man like Irenaeus
YOu mean you put great trust in what you think Irenaeus wrote and meant throughout his life. That's not the same thing.
You don't know that what Irenaeus said is what the church of his time believed.
You don't know how what Irenaeus wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and more proof than Irenaeus' say-so.
You don't know whether Irenaeus was held in the highest respect by his contemporaries. Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad, but quite shallow compared to others, most of the time.
You don't know whether you have all Irenaeus' writings, or even what % his today-extant writings form of the total things he wrote over his lifetime. Thus you don't know if he ever took it all, or part of it, back.
You don't know whether what Irenaeus said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
You don't take everything that is extant from Irenaeus and believe it. You believe only the parts that the modern Roman Catholic Church has dogmatised and accepted for modern times. Why call him a "Church Father" at all? Seems to me a traditional nomenclature that fails to take the above into consideration, fails to think through the divide between what he believed and what modern Rome believes, and has served as a useful tool for you, so you decided to keep it. And it is useful - citing "Fathers" sounds so imperial, so high-fallootin', so mysteriously powerful, that often it causes a brain block within the mind of the Sola Scripturist. I myself have experienced this many times.
Hope you don't mind my input.
Peace,
Rhology
YOu mean you put great trust in what you think Irenaeus wrote and meant throughout his life. That's not the same thing.
You don't know that what Irenaeus said is what the church of his time believed.
You don't know how what Irenaeus wrote was received by other churches. Any mere claims to "we believe thus" are not necessarily true. Not without proof, and more proof than Irenaeus' say-so.
You don't know whether Irenaeus was held in the highest respect by his contemporaries. Maybe you're reading the Charles Stanley of their time - not really all that bad, but quite shallow compared to others, most of the time.
You don't know whether you have all Irenaeus' writings, or even what % his today-extant writings form of the total things he wrote over his lifetime. Thus you don't know if he ever took it all, or part of it, back.
You don't know whether what Irenaeus said in public or in private teachings actually comports with the extant writings you have.
You don't take everything that is extant from Irenaeus and believe it. You believe only the parts that the modern Roman Catholic Church has dogmatised and accepted for modern times. Why call him a "Church Father" at all? Seems to me a traditional nomenclature that fails to take the above into consideration, fails to think through the divide between what he believed and what modern Rome believes, and has served as a useful tool for you, so you decided to keep it. And it is useful - citing "Fathers" sounds so imperial, so high-fallootin', so mysteriously powerful, that often it causes a brain block within the mind of the Sola Scripturist. I myself have experienced this many times.
Hope you don't mind my input.
Peace,
Rhology
RHOLOGY SAID:he was not the Pope when he wrote "Called to Communion"
Does becoming Pope somehow supernaturally grant that one's arguments become better?
the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra.
How do you know? How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?
The New Testament is not a theological handbook. It was clearly not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of doctrine and dogma.
And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.
The definitions you provided are still open to many questions.
So is the code of Canon Law, and it's many 1000s of pages. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
For instance, if the Bible is so clear on the matter of baptism, why can't Protestants settle on a single description of the sacrament?
1) B/c some people get it wrong. We just went over this.
2) If the Roman Magisterium is so clear on the matter of abortion, why can't RCs settle on a single position on it?
3) You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?
Get a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and a Baptist in the same room and ask them about the Eucharist.
True (except that there are Calvinist Baptists. I'm one.)
The Baptist one is correct.
You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?
bureaucracy is one thing; disagreement -- often intense and stark disagreement -- is quite another. They're two entirely different problems.
Given that the NT expects disagreement (1 Cor 11:17-19) but knows nothing of a huge church bureaucracy, why wouldn't one be far more concerned about the latter?
We don't lack unity on the important questions
Who decides which questions are important?
Peace,
Rhology
Does becoming Pope somehow supernaturally grant that one's arguments become better?
the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra.
How do you know? How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?
The New Testament is not a theological handbook. It was clearly not intended to be an exhaustive explanation of doctrine and dogma.
And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.
The definitions you provided are still open to many questions.
So is the code of Canon Law, and it's many 1000s of pages. I don't see what that has to do with anything.
For instance, if the Bible is so clear on the matter of baptism, why can't Protestants settle on a single description of the sacrament?
1) B/c some people get it wrong. We just went over this.
2) If the Roman Magisterium is so clear on the matter of abortion, why can't RCs settle on a single position on it?
3) You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?
Get a Catholic, an Orthodox, a Lutheran, a Calvinist, and a Baptist in the same room and ask them about the Eucharist.
True (except that there are Calvinist Baptists. I'm one.)
The Baptist one is correct.
You were just a second ago telling me that the Church allows significant latitude except on issues that are de fide or ex cathedra. Why are you acting differently toward my position? Why can't you be consistent?
bureaucracy is one thing; disagreement -- often intense and stark disagreement -- is quite another. They're two entirely different problems.
Given that the NT expects disagreement (1 Cor 11:17-19) but knows nothing of a huge church bureaucracy, why wouldn't one be far more concerned about the latter?
We don't lack unity on the important questions
Who decides which questions are important?
Peace,
Rhology
RHOLOGY SAID:Only when the Holy Spirit chooses to speak through him.
How can you distinguish between when the HS is and isn't speaking thru him?
Because honest debate has existed among Catholic scholars and theologians from the very start, genuine debate that nonetheless remained within the boundaries of orthodoxy.
Debate doesn't exist w/o controversy and disagreement, but you've been trying to criticise Prot-ism for having controversy and disagreement. I don't understand what you've been getting at.
***How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?* ***
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
That will be my answer from now on whenever you ask me about disagreements between Prots about what the Bible teaches.
Until you provide a real answer, I figure yours is good enough for me.
**And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.***
Obviously not clear enough, or there would be no divisions among any Christians anywhere.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
The Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching. T
...and yet some RCs don't agree. Right?
Now, take that same reasoning, apply it to the Bible's teaching on Eucharist/baptism/repentance, and voilà! Your criticisms of Prot-ism are now neutered.
On such issues, the Church has established dogma, whereas Protestants cannot get on the same page whatsoever.
The Bible is crystal clear on these issues. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
***Who decides which questions are important? ***
Scripture and Tradition, as read and interpreted by the Church Universal across space and time.
Those aren't "who"s; they're "what"s. Please answer the question.
This discussion is difficult because we have such intensely different paradigms
Your double standards don't help.
How can you distinguish between when the HS is and isn't speaking thru him?
Because honest debate has existed among Catholic scholars and theologians from the very start, genuine debate that nonetheless remained within the boundaries of orthodoxy.
Debate doesn't exist w/o controversy and disagreement, but you've been trying to criticise Prot-ism for having controversy and disagreement. I don't understand what you've been getting at.
***How do you know you haven't mistaken what "the Church" allows?
How do you know that the resource(s) you read that expressed that idea to you were not actually outside the pale of acceptable Roman orthodoxy?* ***
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
That will be my answer from now on whenever you ask me about disagreements between Prots about what the Bible teaches.
Until you provide a real answer, I figure yours is good enough for me.
**And yet it pretty expressly lays out those topics. It's really not that hard.***
Obviously not clear enough, or there would be no divisions among any Christians anywhere.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
The Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching. T
...and yet some RCs don't agree. Right?
Now, take that same reasoning, apply it to the Bible's teaching on Eucharist/baptism/repentance, and voilà! Your criticisms of Prot-ism are now neutered.
On such issues, the Church has established dogma, whereas Protestants cannot get on the same page whatsoever.
The Bible is crystal clear on these issues. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching.
You're getting absurd here. This is common sense.
***Who decides which questions are important? ***
Scripture and Tradition, as read and interpreted by the Church Universal across space and time.
Those aren't "who"s; they're "what"s. Please answer the question.
This discussion is difficult because we have such intensely different paradigms
Your double standards don't help.
RHOLOGY SAID:Hi Phillip,
Without a court of final appeal, how do Protestants settle disputes?
We do. In terms of truth, it's the Bible.
In terms of authority, it's the Bible and the local church. Interestingly, that's what Jesus told us to do and how He told us to do it in Matthew 18.
Why would God allow the potential for such ambiguity in His Church?
Maybe ask Him, but not before reading and meditating on 1 Cor 11:17-19, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and the fact that you've admitted here that there exists plenty of ambiguity within the Roman communion.
So I don't know what you're getting at.
If I leave the Church, where do I go?
You're more than welcome at my Baptist church.
Why does the local Baptist church have greater legitimacy than the local Anglican church?
You're asking one question and implying another, so I'll answer both.
First, the Baptist church has more b/c its teaching is more in agreement with the Scripture.
Second, to say the Baptist church has more is not at all to say that it solely has legitimacy and the Anglican ch doesn't have any. If the local Anglican ch gets it mostly right and gets a few small matters wrong, it's acceptable. It's not all or nothing.
If they are equally legitimate, why do denominations exist at all?
There are many answers to this, and I'm sure you could do some reading in history to find out.
As far as why I persist in my denomination and don't decry their continued existence, tell me what's wrong with them first. Don't appeal to some ambiguous abstract "disunity"; tell me concretely what the problem is.
I am credobaptist. My brother John Bugay is pædobaptist. I think he's wrong in that view, but that's as far as I'm concerned a tertiary doctrine. I don't want to baptise my kids and so I am Baptist, but I wouldn't have any problem worshiping at his local ch if there weren't a decent credobap local ch that were accessible to me. We have unity in the principal things, and that's what matters.
Catholics have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
1) Sola Scripturists have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
2) The claim to "twenty centuries of consistent teaching" is only possible to make when you grossly cherry-pick teachings NOW, identify the ones you chose as "these are our Sacred Tradition, and those other parts aren't" NOW, and then look back and say "See? Consistent!"
That's hardly impressive. Anyone can cherry-pick.
Far better to choose a view like Sola Scripura wherein we recognise that the church throughout time has been variable, unstable at times, and full of disagreements. All things are to be judged by Scripture. Simple.
Without a court of final appeal, how do Protestants settle disputes?
We do. In terms of truth, it's the Bible.
In terms of authority, it's the Bible and the local church. Interestingly, that's what Jesus told us to do and how He told us to do it in Matthew 18.
Why would God allow the potential for such ambiguity in His Church?
Maybe ask Him, but not before reading and meditating on 1 Cor 11:17-19, Romans 14, 1 Corinthians 8, and the fact that you've admitted here that there exists plenty of ambiguity within the Roman communion.
So I don't know what you're getting at.
If I leave the Church, where do I go?
You're more than welcome at my Baptist church.
Why does the local Baptist church have greater legitimacy than the local Anglican church?
You're asking one question and implying another, so I'll answer both.
First, the Baptist church has more b/c its teaching is more in agreement with the Scripture.
Second, to say the Baptist church has more is not at all to say that it solely has legitimacy and the Anglican ch doesn't have any. If the local Anglican ch gets it mostly right and gets a few small matters wrong, it's acceptable. It's not all or nothing.
If they are equally legitimate, why do denominations exist at all?
There are many answers to this, and I'm sure you could do some reading in history to find out.
As far as why I persist in my denomination and don't decry their continued existence, tell me what's wrong with them first. Don't appeal to some ambiguous abstract "disunity"; tell me concretely what the problem is.
I am credobaptist. My brother John Bugay is pædobaptist. I think he's wrong in that view, but that's as far as I'm concerned a tertiary doctrine. I don't want to baptise my kids and so I am Baptist, but I wouldn't have any problem worshiping at his local ch if there weren't a decent credobap local ch that were accessible to me. We have unity in the principal things, and that's what matters.
Catholics have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
1) Sola Scripturists have many opinions on many things, but the major issues (those relevant to salvation) are set in stone by twenty centuries of consistent teaching.
2) The claim to "twenty centuries of consistent teaching" is only possible to make when you grossly cherry-pick teachings NOW, identify the ones you chose as "these are our Sacred Tradition, and those other parts aren't" NOW, and then look back and say "See? Consistent!"
That's hardly impressive. Anyone can cherry-pick.
Far better to choose a view like Sola Scripura wherein we recognise that the church throughout time has been variable, unstable at times, and full of disagreements. All things are to be judged by Scripture. Simple.
RHOLOGY SAID:On the other hand, Protestants rage over matters big and small, issues irrelevant and relevant to salvation
So do Roman Catholics.
The ones that you disagree sufficiently with you'll simply write out of the Roman communion, but you don't have any authority to do that; only the Magisterium does, and the Mag doesn't do a whole lot of excommunicating and defining some really important doctrines infallibly.
So don't act like you're any better off. You're not.
And these fights are not just between denominations, but within them!
And these fights are not just between RCC and EOxy, but within Rome!
And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with the Bible.
And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with arcane Magisterial documents that often contradict each other.
Better to argue about the meaning of an infallible Scripture than about the fallible "clarifications" of evil men.
You simply cannot claim that the Bible is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
You simply cannot claim that the Magisterium is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
See how easy the naked assertion game is? Why don't you give us an argument and show your true colors a little more clearly? Namely, it's clear you're not a big fan of the Bible. You love the RCC more than God's Word. Typical, really, and typically sad.
As I see it, you're just functioning as your own Magisterium.
So are you; you have to interpret Magisterial pronouncements.
Phillip, do you realise that we've seen and dealt with these objections a thousand times? You're unfortunately not breaking any new ground here. I wonder when online RCs are going to come up with some progression in the debate.
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Bible is crystal clear. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Roman Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
If I need to choose between the Magisterium of Rhology and the ancient and venerable Magisterium of Rome
Thank God that's a false dilemma.
Thank God also that I haven't made any statement that would reasonably lead a person to that conclusion.
Peace,
Rhology
So do Roman Catholics.
The ones that you disagree sufficiently with you'll simply write out of the Roman communion, but you don't have any authority to do that; only the Magisterium does, and the Mag doesn't do a whole lot of excommunicating and defining some really important doctrines infallibly.
So don't act like you're any better off. You're not.
And these fights are not just between denominations, but within them!
And these fights are not just between RCC and EOxy, but within Rome!
And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with the Bible.
And, going back to the issue of authority, there is simply no genuine way of settling disputes except to beat one another over the head with arcane Magisterial documents that often contradict each other.
Better to argue about the meaning of an infallible Scripture than about the fallible "clarifications" of evil men.
You simply cannot claim that the Bible is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
You simply cannot claim that the Magisterium is crystal clear. It contradicts reality.
See how easy the naked assertion game is? Why don't you give us an argument and show your true colors a little more clearly? Namely, it's clear you're not a big fan of the Bible. You love the RCC more than God's Word. Typical, really, and typically sad.
As I see it, you're just functioning as your own Magisterium.
So are you; you have to interpret Magisterial pronouncements.
Phillip, do you realise that we've seen and dealt with these objections a thousand times? You're unfortunately not breaking any new ground here. I wonder when online RCs are going to come up with some progression in the debate.
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Bible is crystal clear. Some Prots simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
What you're really saying is this: "My reading of the Magisterium is crystal clear. Some Roman Catholics simply choose to deny its plain and straightforward teaching."
If I need to choose between the Magisterium of Rhology and the ancient and venerable Magisterium of Rome
Thank God that's a false dilemma.
Thank God also that I haven't made any statement that would reasonably lead a person to that conclusion.
Peace,
Rhology
RHOLOGY SAID:The Bible is very dear to me, but so is the Church. I do not think the two can or should be divided or pitted against each other.
Unfortunately, when the church we're talking about is the Roman church, conflict is unavoidable.
If RCC took more pains to make their dogma comport with Scripture, you could easily say what you say here. *I* can say it, talking about my local Baptist ch (for the most part; nobody's perfect), b/c my Baptist ch's doctrine is in line with Scripture.
Rome's is not, and that's perhaps no more clearly seen than when Roman apologists like yourself go to great trouble to deny the BIble's clarity when in fact the Bible claims clarity for itself.
I concede that a Catholic must "interpret" Magisterial teaching
Thus by your own yardstick, every RC is a Magisterium of one.
Or you could withdraw that silly "Magisterium of one" argument.
I do not think such teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting Catholics embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.
And aNOTHER double standard from you.
I do not think biblical teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting "Protestants" embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.
the Catholic system...while imperfect, is (a) Scripturally sanctioned
You haven't really argued that, at least not in this combox.
preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums.
And you've just conceded a few sentences ago that this argument is untenable.
What else you got?
I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility
Wait, I thought RCism was preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums. And now you're telling me you're embracing heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion?
thus I also entertain doubts about the exact nature of the Magisterium
It's clear that the Magisterium is your final authority, and you don't know what it is?
That's one seriously messed up worldview, my friend.
I know a number of people who have gone to Rome to settle all manner of contested issues.
I've got a very long list of some other issues the Magisterium could settle but never does.
Protestantism is, to my eye, guilty of countless mistakes and errors.
So is Rome, and far worse actually. Nobody's claiming any church is perfect. The question is: Which one has it right?
Unfortunately, when the church we're talking about is the Roman church, conflict is unavoidable.
If RCC took more pains to make their dogma comport with Scripture, you could easily say what you say here. *I* can say it, talking about my local Baptist ch (for the most part; nobody's perfect), b/c my Baptist ch's doctrine is in line with Scripture.
Rome's is not, and that's perhaps no more clearly seen than when Roman apologists like yourself go to great trouble to deny the BIble's clarity when in fact the Bible claims clarity for itself.
I concede that a Catholic must "interpret" Magisterial teaching
Thus by your own yardstick, every RC is a Magisterium of one.
Or you could withdraw that silly "Magisterium of one" argument.
I do not think such teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting Catholics embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.
And aNOTHER double standard from you.
I do not think biblical teachings are nearly as complex or ambiguous as you make them seem. Most dissenting "Protestants" embrace heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion.
the Catholic system...while imperfect, is (a) Scripturally sanctioned
You haven't really argued that, at least not in this combox.
preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums.
And you've just conceded a few sentences ago that this argument is untenable.
What else you got?
I have already admitted that I am uncertain about papal infallibility
Wait, I thought RCism was preferable to the typical Protestant situation, which is doctrinal anarchy of a million miniature magisteriums. And now you're telling me you're embracing heterodoxy out of willfulness, not confusion?
thus I also entertain doubts about the exact nature of the Magisterium
It's clear that the Magisterium is your final authority, and you don't know what it is?
That's one seriously messed up worldview, my friend.
I know a number of people who have gone to Rome to settle all manner of contested issues.
I've got a very long list of some other issues the Magisterium could settle but never does.
Protestantism is, to my eye, guilty of countless mistakes and errors.
So is Rome, and far worse actually. Nobody's claiming any church is perfect. The question is: Which one has it right?
RHOLOGY SAID:Where can I go to receive the Body and Blood of Christ?
Since Christ meant that we eat and drink His body and blood by believing in HIm and coming to Him in John 6, Rome is one place where you CAN'T go for that.
Like I said, my church is always available to you.
? What other congregation shows proper reverence to the God-bearer, the very vessel that carried the Word of God?
Baptists (and Presbys) do. We show her PROPER reverence.
Rome, however, shows her undue and blasphemous reverence to her by elevating her at times above Jesus Himself and praying to her.
If that's what you think Catholicism comes down to, go spend a weekend at some lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to the Trinity.
It'd probably be easier (and more representative of practical RCism) to find a lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to Mary, Co-Redemptrix and Queen of Heaven, our savior from Jesus.
You are clearly more familiar with these apologetical debates than I am. I applaud your skill and erudition. Thank you for humoring me. This is not my turf. You have given me much to consider. Thank you again. God bless.
And thanks for coming by.
I encourage you to seek out answers to the challenges we've laid down here. I believe you'll find, if you search honestly and with a repentant heart, that these challenges have no answer in Rome, that you must come home to a church that loves and honors God's Word above its human reflection and puts its full faith in Christ alone to save.
Since Christ meant that we eat and drink His body and blood by believing in HIm and coming to Him in John 6, Rome is one place where you CAN'T go for that.
Like I said, my church is always available to you.
? What other congregation shows proper reverence to the God-bearer, the very vessel that carried the Word of God?
Baptists (and Presbys) do. We show her PROPER reverence.
Rome, however, shows her undue and blasphemous reverence to her by elevating her at times above Jesus Himself and praying to her.
If that's what you think Catholicism comes down to, go spend a weekend at some lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to the Trinity.
It'd probably be easier (and more representative of practical RCism) to find a lovely little rustic abbey chanting the liturgy of the hours with monks who have given their hearts, bodies, and minds fully to Mary, Co-Redemptrix and Queen of Heaven, our savior from Jesus.
You are clearly more familiar with these apologetical debates than I am. I applaud your skill and erudition. Thank you for humoring me. This is not my turf. You have given me much to consider. Thank you again. God bless.
And thanks for coming by.
I encourage you to seek out answers to the challenges we've laid down here. I believe you'll find, if you search honestly and with a repentant heart, that these challenges have no answer in Rome, that you must come home to a church that loves and honors God's Word above its human reflection and puts its full faith in Christ alone to save.
No comments:
Post a Comment