Ignorance and pride are worse when mixed together

[Trebor135]

Also…

around my part of the globe Catholics enjoy legal benefits that aren’t available to Protestants.

I come from the same “part of the globe” and–though my knowledge of Canadian history is rusty–I am fairly certain that the existence of a separate Catholic school system does not originate from the favoritism and bias of a chauvinistically Catholic state. (Such a creature has never existed, and will never exist, here.)

This country has always been majority Protestant, and if I am not mistaken, the Protestant-majority governments instituted the separate school system as a concession to keep Catholics happy–a good-faith gesture showing that the state was not aiming to squeeze this minority community.

This does not mean that I favour this imbalance. Protestants should also have access to their own publicly funded school systems. Ontario politician John Tory proposed the establishment of such school systems for all religious groups, but he was not elected premier–widely believed to be a result of his scheme–so the plan has not been implemented in Canada’s most populous province.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I believe that if you managed to confront one they would say:

1. What I believe is truth
2. What you believe is a false
3. True love would require that I identify your false beliefs for you;
4. …and to do such bluntly and forcefully so as to get through that thick skull of yours.

I am not a fan of that approach…but it is not entirely uncommon among Christians Some Catholics here utilize that approach with respect to Protestants.

I hear ya, but lets walk through this a bit deeper.

Force is the issue which cannot be Blessed by Christ, in fact its counter Bible.

Truth is Truth even if only one believe’s it.

The issue has now escalated so far past denomination I find it amazing one can even focus in this realm. Government can’t even be spoken to because they just do-not get it. They are on the I, Me, and Myself program. And see nothing but what they identify with in other’s inferior theory, which they then relate back to themselves and conclude, this would benefit I, Me, and Myself. Then they push to install this by pride and ignorance often presented in arrogance and call it “LAW”.

The different churchs are starting to see the bigger picture, yet are somehow imperfectly concluding how we should Kill and Nuke to obtain world what? Domination called Peace? Wow, there’s a theory which sounds like Islamic Jihad. Lets kill them first before they kill us in the name of Our GOD! The same God who said Thou Shall Not Kill then Government States… “Oh, He didn’t mean in War”

The only approach is correct understanding of the NT, not by any denomination but by Bible. And there is only one resounding message by Christ we need focus on today IMHO. For He changed nothing of the Old Law, He added this…

1] Love Your Neighbor

2] Turn the Other Cheek

3] Resist No Evil

and then elaborates is numerous ways to how to achieve this.

This can be the only path to perfectly complete the Kingdom of Heaven on earth by first understanding the Kingdom in within, then projects outward in Love Your Neigbor.

Worst case senerio is Christianity perishs on earth. However, even if only one Christian remained on earth and the choice was to crucify him or convert. Would it not be nobler for that Christian to die in the glory of non-resisting love, praying for his enemies, than to live and wear the crown of Ceaser stained with the Blood of the Slain? Thus to die, would be to die… BLESSED as per BIBLE!

However, one man or a thousand men, firmly resolved not to oppose evil with evil are far more free from danger by violence than those who resort to violence, whether among civil or the savage. Its only this civil thinking which can breed civil thinking. So only one of two possibilites reside, Christianity will perish, or it will prevail and God will act. Its not a matter of forcing Gods will, its a matter of doing Gods will.

In fact Revelations 13 clearly states this; “If one is destined for captivity, into captivity he goes! If one is destined to be slain by the sword, by the sword he will slain! Such is the faithful endurance that distinguishs Gods Holy People!”

Personally I believe Ron Paul come the closest to this Biblical message. Course he is not the more popular for man cannot grasp this logic. We still want to Nuke Iran, kill the Drug Cartel in Mexico and call is “For God and Country”

Then when you ask, How long should we kill and how many? We’ll the only one who could answer that is Government. For certainly God never suggested you kill anyone. If fact he specifically stated “Thou Shall Not Kill”.

Fundemental problem I see is nobody really takes this serious, really don’t believe it, or kinda, sorta try to make it fit in the context of what they believe social/polical reality should be.

Course Pride and Ignorance is promoted, sold and imported and exported here in the US of A. and the WEST. And the Chant becomes if we don’t stand together and fight, we will surely lose. Lose what? A physical world God already stated we did not belong to?

Pretty hard Biblical concept to swallow, I see no way around it though. Or we can just have a Pagan Party and see who can out kill each other for all the richs of the world. Problem with this is everytime we enter into this equation, we “feel” guilty and rightfully so, then give everyone back what we won through War, and tell them to be Good Boys and Girls now. In the meantime they are building Nuclear weapons to kill us. So then, how does this cycle end?

I believe we are caught in the same penitential cycle the Jews were caught in the OT by not following Gods Word to the letter. And thats exactly what it was, for He will not Bless Pride and Ignorance, only completely following His Will. So too the Free-Will must come into play and be correctly understood. Free means Gift, Will means Gods Will. For He is the one who gave it to us. Thus when we do not follow Gods Will? We automatically are working against it! There is no other way this could be understood where is equates to Salvation. We are in the exact same cycle of Isael pre-christianity, only on a World level now.

Its “impossible” to bargain with God. Well God, I hear what your saying, but how about I do this instead? Not happening, as we so clearly see in History.

And understood this is what the Church is teaching today. For if you do not walk through the door of Gods Mercy? Then you must walk through the door of Justice.

Hey as I said, the Truth is the Truth, regardless of who believes it!

Peace

 

[Radical]

I agree that ploughing through dispassionate academic treatments of any subject will be far more beneficial than reading fact-challenged polemical rants.

Who are these “renowned scholars” who you believe respond effectively to Catholicism?

WRT which topic?

My original point was that these sites never state their reasons for hostility to be any of the factors you suggest here. What you argue could be perceived as offensive does not actually appear to be touching off the negativity toward Catholics found among nearly all who deny their Christian status. The analysis which you propose for the extreme hostility emanating from a small minority of Protestants, therefore, has no explanatory power.

My analysis was not suggested as an explanation for the extreme hostility…it was suggested as a place to start.

 

[Radical]

Also, I don’t think that by saying “separated brethren” we mean to be offensive. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, yes; we just aren’t living under the same roof, so, therefore, the term “separated” seems appropriate to me.

yes, separated from each other is not offensive in any way. Separated from the one true Church could be seen as such.

 

[graceandglory]

I’m shocked to see an incredible ignorance and confusion among some “Christian” groups who claim to “love” Catholics yet set up websites that are only promoting hatred and anger towards anything Catholic.

Has anyone seen the website by an ex-priest by last name Bennett? I understand that he has two sites dedicated to ministering to Catholics. One of these websites even carries the misleading title something like “What All Catholics Need to Know.”

Normally, I would avoid giving publicity to these types of websites, but I’m wondering why there are people out there who seemingly mean well yet are really creating more division among Christians.

I have met Bennett. I have been in his house. He suffers from severe head trauma. I was priveleged to have a written conversation with his superior in Ireland.

HIs stories of his time in the priesthood are not substantiated.

 

[Trebor135]

WRT which topic?

Feel free to give scholars writing about the top three issues you have with Catholicism.

My analysis was not suggested as an explanation for the extreme hostility…it was suggested as a place to start.

OK, this makes sense now.

 

[malu2u]

I have met Bennett. I have been in his house. He suffers from severe head trauma. I was priveleged to have a written conversation with his superior in Ireland.

HIs stories of his time in the priesthood are not substantiated.

Thank you for sharing this information. I dare to assume that you have a genuine concern for this man if you actually went to his house and had written dialog with his superiors.

I actually sent him an email as well.

My interest in this topic is mainly because I do believe that people like Bennett actually believe that they are doing God’s will even though it’s tearing apart the body of Christ.

 

[Trebor135]

I have met Bennett. I have been in his house. He suffers from severe head trauma. I was priveleged to have a written conversation with his superior in Ireland.

Do we know Bennett “suffer[ing] from severe head trauma” to be medically established?

HIs stories of his time in the priesthood are not substantiated.

What are these stories he has told? How do we know there’s no evidence for them?

(I’m asking these questions not out of loyalty to his cause but for the sake of putting all the facts on the table.)

 

[rinnie]

I’m shocked to see an incredible ignorance and confusion among some “Christian” groups who claim to “love” Catholics yet set up websites that are only promoting hatred and anger towards anything Catholic.

Has anyone seen the website by an ex-priest by last name Bennett? I understand that he has two sites dedicated to ministering to Catholics. One of these websites even carries the misleading title something like “What All Catholics Need to Know.”

Normally, I would avoid giving publicity to these types of websites, but I’m wondering why there are people out there who seemingly mean well yet are really creating more division among Christians.

I know its so hard to believe. But we have to think back, even when Christ we here walking among us on this earth, Judas betrayed him, and Judas was one of his own Apostles.

So while all we can do is pray for this people that have been given the truth, but have by their own free will choose to walk away, all we can do is pray they will again come back.

All we can do is rely on the mercy of Christ, and thank God for that mercy. Prayer is always the best answer.

 

[Radical]

Feel free to give scholars writing about the top three issues you have with Catholicism.

I’ll start with one topic. Please keep in mind that these scholars haven’t (for the most part) set out to refute the claims of the CC. Instead, they have set out to write the history of the Church and in the process have provided evidence and arguments refuting the claims of the CC.

WRT the Lord’s Supper (aka the Eucharist) and the Catholic mass:

a) as to the shape form and meaning of the Lord’s Supper as it origanlly existed please see the works of Ben Witherington, Everett Ferguson and James Dunn

b) as to the deveolpment of the Lord’s Supper in the first few centuries: Everett Ferguson and Edward Kilmartin

c) as to the diversity of views in existence at the time of Augustine and, in particular, Augustine’s failure to embrace a real bodily presence view: Edward Kilmartin, Garry Wills

Such scholars are not hard to locate…just look for a non-Catholic sort of scholar who has studied the matter in question and he will provide a case against Catholic claims…if he didn’t, then he would have typically joined Catholicism…there are hundreds upon hundreds of such scholars (I have merely listed the ones that I have read recently). Of the five that I have listed, the last two are actually Catholics…that is one of those things about Catholicism…you can disagree with what the head office asserts and still be part of the firm…

 

[graceandglory]

Do we know Bennett “suffer[ing] from severe head trauma” to be medically established?

What are these stories he has told? How do we know there’s no evidence for them?

(I’m asking these questions not out of loyalty to his cause but for the sake of putting all the facts on the table.)

The stories he tells are the hogwash stories about all the priests and religious he knew who didn’t know anything about their faith. While it’s “possible” that he did not understand his faith, that doesn’t mean others didn’t either. I would like to give him a pass, and suggest, according to his superior, that he really did know his Catholic faith at one time, but injury has affected his memory.

 

[malu2u]

I’ll start with one topic. Please keep in mind that these scholars haven’t (for the most part) set out to refute the claims of the CC. Instead, they have set out to write the history of the Church and in the process have provided evidence and arguments refuting the claims of the CC.

WRT the Lord’s Supper (aka the Eucharist) and the Catholic mass:

a) as to the shape form and meaning of the Lord’s Supper as it origanlly existed please see the works of Ben Witherington, Everett Ferguson and James Dunn

b) as to the deveolpment of the Lord’s Supper in the first few centuries: Everett Ferguson and Edward Kilmartin

c) as to the diversity of views in existence at the time of Augustine and, in particular, Augustine’s failure to embrace a real bodily presence view: Edward Kilmartin, Garry Wills

Such scholars are not hard to locate…just look for a non-Catholic sort of scholar who has studied the matter in question and he will provide a case against Catholic claims…if he didn’t, then he would have typically joined Catholicism…there are hundreds upon hundreds of such scholars (I have merely listed the ones that I have read recently). Of the five that I have listed, the last two are actually Catholics…that is one of those things about Catholicism…you can disagree with what the head office asserts and still be part of the firm…

So, basically it boils down to authority. The non-catholic scholarship says one thing and states its reasons; then the Catholic scholarship says its claim and states its reasons. We are left to decide which way we are going to go. Shall we play eeny-meeny-miny-mo?

I happen to believe that Jesus meant it when he said that the Holy Spirit would bring the Apostles to an understanding of all that he taught them. And they in turn handed that faith to the next generation and so on. The alternative to the Catholic claim of Apostolic authority is that evil has prevailed for two thousand years, and I just think that that is giving the devil way too much credit. I think God is really the one behind the fact that we can KNOW for sure that we have been taught all that the apostles handed down.

This is not to say that the Protestant’s love for Scripture is not commendable; it is beautiful and inspiring, also a testament to the work of the Holy Spirit. Remember, God’s love is not limited to the Church, but it is most fully expressed in it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

So, basically it boils down to authority. The non-catholic scholarship says one thing and states its reasons; then the Catholic scholarship says its claim and states its reasons. We are left to decide which way we are going to go. Shall we play eeny-meeny-miny-mo?

I happen to believe that Jesus meant it when he said that the Holy Spirit would bring the Apostles to an understanding of all that he taught them. And they in turn handed that faith to the next generation and so on. The alternative to the Catholic claim of Apostolic authority is that evil has prevailed for two thousand years, and I just think that that is giving the devil way too much credit. I think God is really the one behind the fact that we can KNOW for sure that we have been taught all that the apostles handed down.

This is not to say that the Protestant’s love for Scripture is not commendable; it is beautiful and inspiring, also a testament to the work of the Holy Spirit. Remember, God’s love is not limited to the Church, but it is most fully expressed in it.

AMEN

 

[Radical]

So, basically it boils down to authority.

pretty much

The non-catholic scholarship says one thing and states its reasons; then the Catholic scholarship says its claim and states its reasons. We are left to decide which way we are going to go.

that should be: The non-catholic scholars and certain Catholic scholars say one thing (with their reasons); then the conservative Catholic scholars say another thing (with their reasons)… and we are left to decide which way we are going to go.

Shall we play eeny-meeny-miny-mo?

…or you could go with the better scholarship

I happen to believe that Jesus meant it when he said that the Holy Spirit would bring the Apostles to an understanding of all that he taught them.

and I believe that Jesus meant what he said too

The alternative to the Catholic claim of Apostolic authority is that evil has prevailed for two thousand years, and I just think that that is giving the devil way too much credit.

I find this to be an odd way of looking at the matter…those claiming apostolic authority can be the grossest sinners imaginable, but as long as they still have authority, then evil has not prevailed (or is not prevailing)…and conversely, if the men of the Church are righteous but are w/o an infallible teaching authority, then evil is prevailing. That seems far too contrived to me.

I think God is really the one behind the fact that we can KNOW for sure that we have been taught all that the apostles handed down.

and that is exactly what the advocates of Sola Scriptura would say

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Radical quote; that should be: The non-catholic scholars and certain Catholic scholars say one thing (with their reasons); then the conservative Catholic scholars say another thing (with their reasons)… and we are left to decide which way we are going to go

.

Not true, Scholars from every branch religious or secular, Catholic or non cathoilc does not dictate what is to be believed or not. Whether they agree with the Church’s biblical practices, and biblical teachings.

The Catholic (universal) Church rules on faith and morals “infallibly” from what Jesus revealed and the apostles handed down to us through sacred writings and sacred Traditions.

The opinions of scholars are not the ones who dictate the Christian faith these past 2000 years since pentecost. These only lend support to what is already believed and practiced since apostolic times in the Catholic Church unchanged.

 

[graceandglory]

Thank you for sharing this information. I dare to assume that you have a genuine concern for this man if you actually went to his house and had written dialog with his superiors.

I actually sent him an email as well.

My interest in this topic is mainly because I do believe that people like Bennett actually believe that they are doing God’s will even though it’s tearing apart the body of Christ.

Yes, I do. My dear friend is his niece. :hug1:

 

[Trebor135]

I’ll start with one topic. Please keep in mind that these scholars haven’t (for the most part) set out to refute the claims of the CC. Instead, they have set out to write the history of the Church and in the process have provided evidence and arguments refuting the claims of the CC.

WRT the Lord’s Supper (aka the Eucharist) and the Catholic mass:

a) as to the shape form and meaning of the Lord’s Supper as it origanlly existed please see the works of Ben Witherington, Everett Ferguson and James Dunn

b) as to the deveolpment of the Lord’s Supper in the first few centuries: Everett Ferguson and Edward Kilmartin

c) as to the diversity of views in existence at the time of Augustine and, in particular, Augustine’s failure to embrace a real bodily presence view: Edward Kilmartin, Garry Wills

Such scholars are not hard to locate…just look for a non-Catholic sort of scholar who has studied the matter in question and he will provide a case against Catholic claims…if he didn’t, then he would have typically joined Catholicism…there are hundreds upon hundreds of such scholars (I have merely listed the ones that I have read recently). Of the five that I have listed, the last two are actually Catholics…that is one of those things about Catholicism…you can disagree with what the head office asserts and still be part of the firm…

This whole debate as to whether the “real bodily presence” of Catholicism and Orthodoxy contradicts the beliefs of the early centuries about communion involves making a mountain out of a molehill.

I’ve read statements by Ante-Nicene Church Fathers that do not describe the trinity with as much precision as we would today, in such a manner as–if we read statements so worded from present-day Christian theologians–we might question the orthodox character of their faith. We can conclude that those very early Christian thinkers either (1) felt no need to spend too much time pondering the nitty-gritty details of the issue or (2) lacked the language or philosophical framework to express the profound notions that they believed in but struggled to convey.

Similarly, that the Christians in the earliest centuries, perhaps even St. Augustine, would not hold to exactly the same formulation of beliefs about communion as expressed in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today does not demonstrate the corruption of the original teachings to have taken place.

 

[Radical]

This whole debate as to whether the “real bodily presence” of Catholicism and Orthodoxy contradicts the beliefs of the early centuries about communion involves making a mountain out of a molehill.

it is more like determining if the CC and EOC have taken a molehill (a communal meal utilizing symbols) and turned it into a mountain (a ritual where the real body of Christ is allegedly made present and then actually eaten) and then declared that the constructed mountain must be believed

I’ve read statements by Ante-Nicene Church Fathers that do not describe the trinity with as much precision as we would today, in such a manner as–if we read statements so worded from present-day Christian theologians–we might question the orthodox character of their faith.

and you should have also encountered Arius and should have bee able to tell that his beliefs were very different…

We can conclude that those very early Christian thinkers either (1) felt no need to spend too much time pondering the nitty-gritty details of the issue or (2) lacked the language or philosophical framework to express the profound notions that they believed in but struggled to convey.

we could conclude that…but does that conclusion make any sense in light of the evidence?

Similarly, that the Christians in the earliest centuries, perhaps even St. Augustine, would not hold to exactly the same formulation of beliefs about communion as expressed in Catholicism and Orthodoxy today does not demonstrate the corruption of the original teachings to have taken place.

if it was a case of “not quite exactly the same” you might have a point…but IMHO it is “not anywhere near the same”

 

[Trebor135]

it is more like determining if the CC and EOC have taken a molehill (a communal meal utilizing symbols) and turned it into a mountain (a ritual where the real body of Christ is allegedly made present and then actually eaten) and then declared that the constructed mountain must be believed

Do you argue that a Zwinglian or semi-Zwinglian theology of communion existed in orthodox Christianity over a thousand years before the sixteenth century?

and you should have also encountered Arius and should have bee able to tell that his beliefs were very different…

Arius went from “Christ is fully God–he was always uncreated, from the beginning of time” to “Christ is not fully God–he was once created, before all else”. His doctrine was condemned at an ecumenical council.

But for Catholics/Orthodox over the centuries to go from “The communion elements provide partakers with grace or undergo some kind of transformation” to “The communion elements undergo transformation into the body and blood of Christ” does not involve a reversal of the doctrine. If this expansion/deepening of the knowledge of a teaching constitutes a corruption as you argue, which of its early proponents were condemned, Marcion- or Arius-style, as heretics? When did the anathematizing take place? At what local or ecumenical councils? A heresy as severe as the “real bodily presence”–if it were an error of such magnitude–should have received the angry attention of at least a few informed parties when it was first emerging.

we could conclude that…but does that conclusion make any sense in light of the evidence?

Since we are not in a position to ask the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers to clarify what they truly believed about the trinity, we can never know until/unless we meet them in heaven.

if it was a case of “not quite exactly the same” you might have a point…but IMHO it is “not anywhere near the same”

Please see above.

 

[Trebor135]

Also…

Part 1 of 2

I’ll start with one topic. Please keep in mind that these scholars haven’t (for the most part) set out to refute the claims of the CC. Instead, they have set out to write the history of the Church and in the process have provided evidence and arguments refuting the claims of the CC.

WRT the Lord’s Supper (aka the Eucharist) and the Catholic mass:

a) as to the shape form and meaning of the Lord’s Supper as it origanlly existed please see the works of Ben Witherington, Everett Ferguson and James Dunn

I own a book by James D.G. Dunn entitled “Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?” I would first like to cite the conclusion of the book, called “The answer” (pages 147-151):

This inquiry has clarified a number of important points that feed into the answer to its central question, ‘Did the first Christians worship Jesus?’ One is that there are some problems, even dangers, in Christian worship if it is defined too simply as worship of Jesus. For, if what has emerged in this inquiry is taken seriously, it soon becomes evident that Christian worship can deteriorate into what may be called Jesus-olatry. That is, not simply into worship of Jesus, but into a worship that falls short of the worship due to the one God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I use the term ‘Jesus-olatry’ as in an important sense parallel or even close to ‘idolatry’. As Israel’s prophets pointed out on several occasions, the calamity of idolatry is that the idol is in effect taken to be the god to be worshipped. So the idol substitutes for the god, takes the place of God. The worship due to God is absorbed by the idol. The danger of Jesus-olatry is similar: that Jesus has been substituted for God, has taken the place of the one creator God; Jesus is absorbing the worship due to God alone. It is this danger that helps explain why the New Testament refers to Jesus by the word ‘icon’ (eikon) - the icon of the invisible God. … To put it another way, there is a roundedness in the New Testament’s evaluation of Jesus that the question, ‘Did they worship Jesus?’, can easily lose sight of. The Jesus whose name is invoked in prayer is also the Jesus who intercedes for his own. The Jesus who is Lord and the image of God is also the last Adam and pattern to whom believers are being conformed, the eldest brother in the family of the new creation. The Jesus through whom God has most clearly come to humankind is also the Jesus through whom worshippers come to God; he is the mediator.

…

A third point that has emerged is that Christian reflection on the significance and status of Jesus has been Christianity’s principal attempt to make sense of how the gulf between the divine and the human is to be crossed. All religions are in their own ways attempts to affirm that the infinite gulf between

…

Creator and creation can be bridged and to show how that bridging takes place. In each case sacred places and sacred times, sacred liturgy and sacred ritual, sacred writings and sacred individuals (priest and lawgiver, prophet and sage), play critical roles. But Christianity has gone a step further in declaring that God has bridged the gulf not merely in scripture and temple, not only through priest and prophet, but in a particular individual through whom God revealed himself and who constitutes the bridge over the gulf in himself. That claim remains a claim too far for Jews and Muslims. But the claim that Christians make is that the character of God has never been revealed so fully and profoundly as in Jesus - in his mission, in his cruel death on the cross, and in his resurrection and exaltation. It is because Jesus died as he did that Christians find it necessary to speak of the God who suffers, even of ‘the crucified God’. And so Christians feel able to speak also of a God who knows from within the weaknesses and temptations of the human condition and who can sustain both individuals and peoples in their various bewilderments and questionings, their tribulations and agonies. That conception of how the gulf is bridged has proved too controversial for other religions to embrace. But it is the contribution that Christianity offers to the resolution of the existential angst and conundrum that lie at the root of all religions. And Christians feel confident enough that God is as revealed most clearly in and through Jesus to commend this understanding of God to the wider religious world as the most profound insight into divine reality available to humankind.

Continued in next post.