M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Anyone heard of Peter Ruckman? I saw him in Youtube and he made an Anti-Catholic video. How Anti-Catholic is he? He is a Protestant Pastor.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
I’ve heard of him. I think he’s KJO. I don’t know any more than that but I’ll google him if it’s important.
S
strngrnrth
Guest
I just looked at his entry in Wikipedia. Wow. What a strange person. He thinks he knows of three kinds of aliens, and the color of skin and blood of each kind, and of literally subterrannean alien-breeding farms under CIA control, and he addresses people as rudely as he possibly could. He got out of the military in the 1940’s (no combat) and got into Zen, became suicidal and converted to Christianity, but apparenly a form of it he invented AFAICS. This is acc. to Wikipedia so grains of salt recommended but it’s a start. He is a KJV-Onlyist all right, but he doesn’t have much use for the other KJOs or really just about anyone, it looks like. I wouldn’t worry too much about his opinion. I’d worry more about his mental state if the article is for real.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
OH MY GOSH, next we’ll be hearing that people are turning into lizards.
The word is “crackpot”. That the term that seems to best describe this person.
The word is “crackpot”. That the term that seems to best describe this person.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Dr. Peter Ruckman is very, very anti-Catholic, indeed! His teachings are behind most of what Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera, along with several other publically renowned preaching and print “parachurch evangelists”, among the ranks of “Fundamentalist” sectaries, propagate, not only in the U.S. but world-wide (e.g., Dr. Dennis Lloyd in New Zealand). I have met Dr. Ruckman and Alberto Rivera both twice and have had some correspondence with Ruckman. He really does have a good heart but, alas, also a colourfully nasty tongue, which is how I would sum up his character. Ruckman’s brand of “King James Version Onlyism” (in defense and promotion of the Authorised “King James” Version) is peculiar and different from the stances of others in that Ruckman makes much of putative “K.J.V. distinctives” and especially of “salient passages” to the wording of which Ruckman attaches strange meanings that I am positively certain that the Anglican translators and the Holy Ghost did not intend at all.
Dr. Ruckman has an important prison ministry, distributing K.J.V. Bibles and other Christian literature and making frequent and very earnest evangelistic appearances in U.S. prisons; Ruckman has a “real heart” for those incarcerated and mostly forgotten by the world, which is a quite positive thing that one can say of him! In fact, he really is, despite all the gruffness and combativeness, rather a lovable old codger, on a personal level, however sadly wrong he most assuredly is (from alike genuinely Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox standpoints) on many matters of doctrine and scriptural exposition.
I once saw a filmed debate between Dr. Ruckman and Fr. Keating. It was very clear to me that Dr. Ruckman lost that debate, indeed very miserably, to Keating. Yet Ruckman likes to have the same debate shown widely as an instance in which he supposedly trumped a prominent Catholic apologist in debate, which I am sure no impartial viewer would be inclined to assert!
Dr. Ruckman is right to defend the virtues of the Authorised Version (K.J.V.) Bible, which is a translation superior to modern versions, but he should have more respect for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version (which dates essentially from the same era, as ameliorated by Bp. Richard Challoner rather later) than Ruckman does.
Jerry Parker
Dr. Ruckman has an important prison ministry, distributing K.J.V. Bibles and other Christian literature and making frequent and very earnest evangelistic appearances in U.S. prisons; Ruckman has a “real heart” for those incarcerated and mostly forgotten by the world, which is a quite positive thing that one can say of him! In fact, he really is, despite all the gruffness and combativeness, rather a lovable old codger, on a personal level, however sadly wrong he most assuredly is (from alike genuinely Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox standpoints) on many matters of doctrine and scriptural exposition.
I once saw a filmed debate between Dr. Ruckman and Fr. Keating. It was very clear to me that Dr. Ruckman lost that debate, indeed very miserably, to Keating. Yet Ruckman likes to have the same debate shown widely as an instance in which he supposedly trumped a prominent Catholic apologist in debate, which I am sure no impartial viewer would be inclined to assert!
Dr. Ruckman is right to defend the virtues of the Authorised Version (K.J.V.) Bible, which is a translation superior to modern versions, but he should have more respect for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version (which dates essentially from the same era, as ameliorated by Bp. Richard Challoner rather later) than Ruckman does.
Jerry Parker
R
reteeks21
Guest
He also supports abortion in the womb. He doesn’t believe it’s an actual soul to it’s out and breathes air for the first time. He says those of us that say that the baby is a person inside the womb are using Darwinian principles. He calls the babies “things”. He’s a horrible human being. Quite frankly, I’d love to run into him one night in a dark alley.
J
Jerry_Parker
Guest
Greetings, “1edyson”,
Thanks for giving the link to that debate between Karl Keating and Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, to which I had made mention in my earlier C.A. contribution. I had forgotten that it took place in Long Beach, Calif., which is my home town as well as Keating’s and where both of us were raised and educated. I had not heard the debate since I saw a videotape of it not long after the debate occurred. Dr. Ruckman does make rather a better case for himself than I thought years ago, despite the fact that when I first experienced this debate I tended to lean more to his views! The problem with these highly structured debates is that the opponents do not really come to grips completely with what one or the other has to say and that because of this, misrepresentation of what one side or the other teaches and claims is all too likely to go insufficiently clarified or refuted.
Well, as Catholics, we know that Ruckman, as a sectary, speaks for Ruckman and for those who have more or less the same mind as his own on matters, but Keating speaks for the Catholic Church of antiquity and of today, for Christians whose mind on matters has been the same for two millennia so far, despite some variance in the way that truths have been seen and elaborated, part of what Cdl. Newman refers to as the “development of Christian doctrine” within the bounds of the unity of the same truths maintained within the same Holy Christian Church.
Certainly, Dr. Ruckman has many peculiar and downright eccentric teachings, only few of which came out in his debate with Keating. Quite a good portion of these ideas spring from Ruckman’s own fertile imagination in dealing with what the words of Holy Scripture (minus, for him, the deuterocanonical O.T. portions, of course) state. Others come from the speculations of various sectaries with which Ruckman concurs, but all too many of which, like his own original “insights”, are relatively recent innovations and in no sense “developments” of what the mind of the Church has been over the centuries.
Ruckman, in his writings and in his preaching, propagates the latest and weirdest of these speculations as being equally valid with the most long-held truths of Scripture. Will a Christian of Catholic mind give heed (a) to Ruckman, or (b) to the wisdom of the Church? We know the answer to that! So we take, however much or little, from what Ruckman says that is of worth, as we do with the writings and spoken words of any non-Catholic putative authority, and leave aside as dross what is of scant or no worth at all that is conflict with what the Church believes. What is Catholic is true, and what is purely sectarian is not. The “Mind of the Church” is greater than the sum of the opinions of Dr. Ruckman and of his co-religionists!
Jerry Parker
Thanks for giving the link to that debate between Karl Keating and Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, to which I had made mention in my earlier C.A. contribution. I had forgotten that it took place in Long Beach, Calif., which is my home town as well as Keating’s and where both of us were raised and educated. I had not heard the debate since I saw a videotape of it not long after the debate occurred. Dr. Ruckman does make rather a better case for himself than I thought years ago, despite the fact that when I first experienced this debate I tended to lean more to his views! The problem with these highly structured debates is that the opponents do not really come to grips completely with what one or the other has to say and that because of this, misrepresentation of what one side or the other teaches and claims is all too likely to go insufficiently clarified or refuted.
Well, as Catholics, we know that Ruckman, as a sectary, speaks for Ruckman and for those who have more or less the same mind as his own on matters, but Keating speaks for the Catholic Church of antiquity and of today, for Christians whose mind on matters has been the same for two millennia so far, despite some variance in the way that truths have been seen and elaborated, part of what Cdl. Newman refers to as the “development of Christian doctrine” within the bounds of the unity of the same truths maintained within the same Holy Christian Church.
Certainly, Dr. Ruckman has many peculiar and downright eccentric teachings, only few of which came out in his debate with Keating. Quite a good portion of these ideas spring from Ruckman’s own fertile imagination in dealing with what the words of Holy Scripture (minus, for him, the deuterocanonical O.T. portions, of course) state. Others come from the speculations of various sectaries with which Ruckman concurs, but all too many of which, like his own original “insights”, are relatively recent innovations and in no sense “developments” of what the mind of the Church has been over the centuries.
Ruckman, in his writings and in his preaching, propagates the latest and weirdest of these speculations as being equally valid with the most long-held truths of Scripture. Will a Christian of Catholic mind give heed (a) to Ruckman, or (b) to the wisdom of the Church? We know the answer to that! So we take, however much or little, from what Ruckman says that is of worth, as we do with the writings and spoken words of any non-Catholic putative authority, and leave aside as dross what is of scant or no worth at all that is conflict with what the Church believes. What is Catholic is true, and what is purely sectarian is not. The “Mind of the Church” is greater than the sum of the opinions of Dr. Ruckman and of his co-religionists!
Jerry Parker
Dr. Peter Ruckman is very, very anti-Catholic, indeed! His teachings are behind most of what Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera, along with several other publically renowned preaching and print “parachurch evangelists”, among the ranks of “Fundamentalist” sectaries, propagate, not only in the U.S. but world-wide (e.g., Dr. Dennis Lloyd in New Zealand). I have met Dr. Ruckman and Alberto Rivera both twice and have had some correspondence with Ruckman. He really does have a good heart but, alas, also a colourfully nasty tongue, which is how I would sum up his character. Ruckman’s brand of “King James Version Onlyism” (in defense and promotion of the Authorised “King James” Version) is peculiar and different from the stances of others in that Ruckman makes much of putative “K.J.V. distinctives” and especially of “salient passages” to the wording of which Ruckman attaches strange meanings that I am positively certain that the Anglican translators and the Holy Ghost did not intend at all.
Dr. Ruckman has an important prison ministry, distributing K.J.V. Bibles and other Christian literature and making frequent and very earnest evangelistic appearances in U.S. prisons; Ruckman has a “real heart” for those incarcerated and mostly forgotten by the world, which is a quite positive thing that one can say of him! In fact, he really is, despite all the gruffness and combativeness, rather a lovable old codger, on a personal level, however sadly wrong he most assuredly is (from alike genuinely Protestant, Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox standpoints) on many matters of doctrine and scriptural exposition.
I once saw a filmed debate between Dr. Ruckman and Fr. Keating. It was very clear to me that Dr. Ruckman lost that debate, indeed very miserably, to Keating. Yet Ruckman likes to have the same debate shown widely as an instance in which he supposedly trumped a prominent Catholic apologist in debate, which I am sure no impartial viewer would be inclined to assert!
Dr. Ruckman is right to defend the virtues of the Authorised Version (K.J.V.) Bible, which is a translation superior to modern versions, but he should have more respect for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version (which dates essentially from the same era, as ameliorated by Bp. Richard Challoner rather later) than Ruckman does.
Jerry Parker
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Isn’t this just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of protestantism gone wrong?
Full disclosure ~ I started out, as a child, Episcopalian (or properly, perhaps Protestant Episcopal) and then I move on to the fullness of truth in the Catholic church later in life.
Maybe I am missing something but to me, this is the essence of the issue ~ YES hundreds of years ago certain Church functions were corrupted by fallible humans. It happens. The correction of those problems should be enough for some people, but apparently SOME took that sort of problem as a license to start up their own church, with their own special, personal interpretation and understanding of God.
Let’s not let this get out of hand, let’s understand it for what it actually IS. Egotism. When someone decides to substitute their own judgement for God’s there’s a message there… It doesn’t matter WHEN they do it.
Full disclosure ~ I started out, as a child, Episcopalian (or properly, perhaps Protestant Episcopal) and then I move on to the fullness of truth in the Catholic church later in life.
Maybe I am missing something but to me, this is the essence of the issue ~ YES hundreds of years ago certain Church functions were corrupted by fallible humans. It happens. The correction of those problems should be enough for some people, but apparently SOME took that sort of problem as a license to start up their own church, with their own special, personal interpretation and understanding of God.
Let’s not let this get out of hand, let’s understand it for what it actually IS. Egotism. When someone decides to substitute their own judgement for God’s there’s a message there… It doesn’t matter WHEN they do it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.