I'm calling on everyone here in this forum EXCEPT Catholics !!!

[cyberjacques]

I’ll leave you with this – my faith starts and ends with Jesus and the scriptures (written pre-100 a.d.). Your RCC didn’t even exist at that date. Sorry, but that’s just true history – instead of RCC legends/myths. The RCC you know and love didn’t come into existence until much later, after power, greed, and corruption took over the seat of Rome post-Constantine.

Thank God the Reformation came along to try and return the church to some semblance of what it had been – sadly, the seat of politically power never relinquished it’s hold on the people, nor did it retract its claims as the representative of Jesus on earth.

Whatever happened to “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? I’ll always be confused as to how anyone who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and that the Gospels are indeed a truthful and accurate account of the ministry of Jesus Christ, could reconcile in their own minds this kind of double-think, where entire passages, or even whole books of the Bible can simply be discounted or ignored if it doesn’t support the argument you’re making at the time. Doesn’t Sola Scriptura sort of imply ALL of scripture? How do you write “only the parts of Scripture I like” in Latin? Or maybe “only little bits of Scripture at a time”?

 

[Greg27]

I am not sure whether this is a challenge where you plan to refute people’s objections to the official teachings of the church. For me, the teachings of the church are not matters of mathematical or scientific proof, despite their claims to infallibility. Catholics can claim to the end of the world they are objectively true, but clearly there are people who disagree with some (or all) of the teachings of the church. The disagreements involve complicated factors but also to me indicate the incredible difficulty in trying to find out the truth.

The church has produced many thinkers of depth, rigor and genius, from Augustine to Aquinas to John Paul II. Yet the same can be said for other Christian denominations, religions and philosophers and philosophical movements whose beliefs are at strong variance with those of the Catholic Church.

There is a problem in a secular, pluralistic society that people of good will and good faith don’t agree on many issues of common concern. I think rather than wasting time debating issues Catholics and non-Catholics disagree about (such as contraception for example) it would be better to be less adversarial and work harder to reduce problems which are real and effect living and breathing people, such as economic injustice, poverty, disease, and homelssness, to name a few.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

GAB: I just have to tell you this but first I ask your forgiveness if I have read you wrong.

**RA: **You’ve read me wrong. Forgiveness granted. Basically, I’m not a RC, obviously. So, I’m going to have disagreements with the RCC. If I didn’t have disagreements, I’d be a Roman Catholic.

GAB: I do not detect any honest genuine effort on your part regarding Catholicism

RA: I’m not sure why you think I’m here. if you think it’s because I am trying to learn about RC and I am ignorant of it and wanting to know more about it so that I might join – you are mistaken. I am here to talk. Listen to how others express themselves – and enjoy seeing how people think and express *why *they believe *what *they believe. I’m a professional religion journalist – I like doing research, reading, talking, probing, investigating, learning.

GAB: I think you need to be more honest about your real agenda. Oh yeah, and stop using these boards to plug your upcoming anticatholic, anticatholic church publications !!!

**RA: **Well, if you read the threads carefully, you will see that my comments about my books/materials are not as offensive as you are trying to make it sound. And FYI, I haven’t written a single book, article, paper, or essay on Roman Catholism after nearly 15 years of writing. I have ONE chapter in ONE book (about 8,000 words) coming up that deals with the views held by various Hollywood celebrities who are Roman Catholic. Mmkay?

if you expect me as a non-RC to just agree with everything and so, “Oh, okay,” then I think your expectations are highly unrealistic. I can’t imagine a RC coming to an evangelical board and doing that – can you?

R.A.

High R.A, I would love to comment here, but it was not me who addressed you on this topic. I think you have me mixed up with another poster can please review who you are addressing. Peace Gabriel of 12

 

[Richard_Abanes]

AG: etc etc etc

1. The one quote you pulled – and you know where you can get all the pseudo-attempts to refute what they say – is NOT about Roman Catholicism. It is in reference two two books I have done on Mormonism – i.e., ONE NATION UNDER GODS: A HISTORY OF THE MORMON CHURCH and INSIDE TODAY’S MORMONISM (also titled/covered as BECOMING GODS).
2. There is only one … 1…uno…a single…lone article/chapter on Roman Catholicism I am going to be writing that will appear in ONE book to be published next year - RELIGIONS OF THE STARS. That will be the only thing I have ever professionally written about the RCC. That one chapter will likely include some material on the occult problem within the RCC.

Just FYI, I am not rabidly anti-Catholic. In fact, because of my stand on RCC, and the stand of my church/pastor on RCC, I have been called heretical, a God-hater, a compromiser, not a Christian, someone who desires to merge with Rome, a liberal…you name it (I think even part of the one world coming anfi-Christ religion). So, tbh, in life I am actually fairly a nice guy when it comes to the RCC and I’ve paid a price for taking the stand I take.

AG: And thanks for the heads up that the church Im going to tomorrow for the first time is fully of witchcraft and black magic rituals. I’ll be wearing my eye for protection and stuffing my pockets with garlic. Phew.

**RA: **Ha HA. All kidding aside, you do realize, of course, that youv’e taken my commentt UTTERLy out of context, right? I mean, please tell me that was a joke an you’re not serious. Oh, please, tell me that.

And as for your cutting/pasting of my posts wherein I mention my writings, in context, there were reasons to mention these specific works. You know, context is a real pain sometimes, but give it a shot.

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

BRENNAN: Because whatever their motives, there’s always hope.

RA: And besides, I even have a Roman Catholic hero!!! YUP. He is my favorite, all around, author and to me one of the most inspirational thinkers of the 20th century – If he were alive today, I’d probably go on a pilgimmage to meet him ---- J.R.R. Tolkien.

See, I ain’t so bad…
RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

GRACE: I wonder though, what it would cost RA and other well-known evangelicals, in terms of money, fame (respect), and power, (influence) if they actually took an honest look at the true Catholic Church. What if instead of believing what they think is the Catholic Church, they actually look at the True Church?

RA: Well, for me, it wouldn’t cost a dime, to be honest. Trust me. And if I were to go further, it wouldn’t MATTER how much it cost me. What care I for that??? Jesus siad, “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19-20). A few more scripture on that issue would be:

“What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” (Matthew 16:26).

Whoever loves money never has money enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless." (Eccl. 5:10).

“But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matt. 6:33).

There are many more passages.

I couldn’t care less about “money, fame (respect), and power, (influence).” What a waste of thought and desire – not to mention how utterly opposed it is to scripture and spiritual closeness to our Lord. I have, whatever I have, through obedience to, love for, and life under God.

And whatever he has given me, or will give me, is enough for me. I don’t write or share my faith to get “money, fame (respect), and power, (influence),” I write and share my faith because in my heart of hearts I feel God has called me to this work – on a professional level as well as on a personal ministerial level.

And, my friend, I HAVE taken a look at the RCC. We clearly disagree with what we see. If I, for a SECOND, thought/saw that the RCC was indeed the True Church, as is claimed, I’d be back as a RC in a heartbeat and simply continue my ministry/profession as a RC. But, sorry, what I see – some of which I have articulated here, does not allow me, in good conscience, to make such a move. And I dare say, never will.

And, grace, I do appreciate your last post. But I have heard what you’ve said before.

RA

 

[graceandglory]

**AG:**RELIGIONS OF THE STARS

. That will be the only thing I have ever professionally written about the RCC. That one chapter will likely include some material on the occult problem within the RCC.[/INDENT]
RA

A long time ago, Keith Green made a comment,
“Going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to McDonald’s makes you a hamburger.”

Just remember when you are writing, that calling oneself a Catholic, doesn’t mean they are in communion with the Catholic Church.

May I remind you again of the parable of the wheat and the tares.
The situation we have in the Church, Jesus knew about already.

It’s not going to be perfect until we are all perfected, and that will be in heaven.

 

[graceandglory]

One more thing, RA.
You keep looking for the exceptions, and not the rule.

How would you like someone to list all of your imperfections, and sins that you commit, and say, “This is the real RA.”

And the folks who are not in communion with the Catholic Church, who are in mortal sin, who may say that they are Catholic, but don’t follow the Church’s teaching, and flaunt it, they are not doing it in the name of the Catholic Church, but in their own name.

They bring shame to the Catholic Church and are our worst witness. But Jesus said, they will always be there.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

GRACE: Richard, I have just been to your website, and have taken a look at your list of books.

**RA: **Whew!

GRACE: I now appreciate more where you are coming from. I share your concerns about children’s literature.

RA: Ahhh, so you and I probably could have some great conversations.

GRACE: I think you should start a thread in here about your concerns of witchcraft and the occult in the church. A month or so ago, I was responding in a thread in these forums with someone who was involved in the occult. I told the poster in no uncertain terms that she needed to quit it.

RA: Yeah, perhaps I’ll do that when I am satisfied myself with what I feel I need to know about the issue before talking at length about it.

RA

---

CYBER: Whatever happened to “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?..

RA: I already answered that issue, albeit briefly. And, just fyi, I think you’ll find some interesting things if you did a word-context study on the original language meaning behind that passage…just some food for thought should you wish to pursue it.

RA

 

[Richard_Abanes]

GRACE: And the folks who are not in communion with the Catholic Church, who are in mortal sin, who may say that they are Catholic, but don’t follow the Church’s teaching, and flaunt it, they are not doing it in the name of the Catholic Church, but in their own name.

RA: I agree. No worries. That’s not what it’s about. It’s not like I’m gonna find the worst Hollywood whore who says she’s a Catholic and say, “See, how bad the RCC is!!!” Uhm, no, that’s not the point of the book. Goodness, for Protestantism, all you have to do sometimes is just turn on “Christian” TV and you get all many of absolute LUNACY! It’s at times like that when i wish Protestantism had a Pope to go to and say, “Hey, someone please excommunicate this guy!” :nunchuk:

RA

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

BRENNAN: Because whatever their motives, there’s always hope.

RA: And besides, I even have a Roman Catholic hero!!! YUP. He is my favorite, all around, author and to me one of the most inspirational thinkers of the 20th century – If he were alive today, I’d probably go on a pilgimmage to meet him ---- J.R.R. Tolkien.

See, I ain’t so bad…
RA

Hi Richard,

Yes, I like J.R.R. Tolkien quite a bit as well. I’ve read The Lord of the Rings a few times. The second time I read it, I was Catholic, and the symbolism and allusions he made jumped out at me more such as the Lembas bread symbolizing the Eucharist and, I believe, Galadriel symbolizing the Blessed Virgin Mary.

I even thought some of the reactions to Galadriel by Gimli and the Riders of Rohan (that you had to watch out for her, she was a witch etc.) might have reflected some of Tolkien’s own experiences with what his Mother (and perhaps he himself) had to go through after converting to Catholicism from Protestantism.

Too bad we can’t go to Oxford and take classes with people like him and C.S. Lewis (although I heard Tolkien was hard to understand in class). Amazing that he seems to have almost singlehandedly started the modern fantasy genre.

 

[Richard_Abanes]

**Brennan: **Too bad we can’t go to Oxford and take classes with people like him and C.S. Lewis

RA: I’d actually rather go to a pub with them. Could you imagine sitting around with the Inklings, raising a pint to good fiction and talking about God?! How awesome would that be?

**Brennan: **Galadriel symbolizing the Blessed Virgin Mary.

RA: Yes. Without question, he worked aspects of Mary into Galadriel.

Brennan: (that you had to watch out for her, she was a witch etc.)

**RA: **Well, obviously, though, she’s not a witch. She’s an Elf Queen. You also might be interested to know:

The fellowship leaves Rivendall on Christmas (Dec. 25) and the ring is destroyed by Frodo/Golum on March 25 (per Gondorian reckoning), which according to Old English was the date of the first Good Friday. Soooo, this means the ring story takes place symbolically during the life of Christ – his birth and death.

Cool, huh?

BTW, you see how lewis and Tolkien were friends, got along, but had disagreements, and spoke their minds, I am sure? Well, that’s about how I figured I;d get along with any one of you, who are devout as Tolkien.

RA

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

**Brennan: **Too bad we can’t go to Oxford and take classes with people like him and C.S. Lewis

RA: I’d actually rather go to a pub with them. Could you imagine sitting around with the Inklings, raising a pint to good fiction and talking about God?! How awesome would that be?

**Brennan: **Galadriel symbolizing the Blessed Virgin Mary.

RA: Yes. Without question, he worked aspects of Mary into Galadriel.

Brennan: (that you had to watch out for her, she was a witch etc.)

**RA: **Well, obviously, though, she’s not a witch. She’s an Elf Queen. You also might be interested to know:

The fellowship leaves Rivendall on Christmas (Dec. 25) and the ring is destroyed by Frodo/Golum on March 25 (per Gondorian reckoning), which according to Old English was the date of the first Good Friday. Soooo, this means the ring story takes place symbolically during the life of Christ – his birth and death.

Cool, huh?

BTW, you see how lewis and Tolkien were friends, got along, but had disagreements, and spoke their minds, I am sure? Well, that’s about how I figured I;d get along with any one of you, who are devout as Tolkien.

RA

Cool, thanks, I didn’t realize the dates you mentioned. Of course Frodo’s trip seemed a Via Dolorosa, and I always liked that the hero, Frodo, suffered (and even succumbed) to real temptation and suffered along the way. I always thought TLOTR was one of the best depictions of the Christian life I had ever come across.

Yes, it would have been nice to sit down with the Inklings. Lewis was interesting in that (as I’m sure you know) he didn’t have a problem with Purgatory, went to confession to an Anglican priest, prayed for the dead, and believed Communion was really the body and blood of Jesus. I think it was he who said that the debate about faith and works was like arguing about which blade of a pair of scissors was more important. No wonder he and J.R.R. got along so well! Actually, I think Lewis tended to avoid debates between Catholicism and Protestantism.

God bless.

 

[cyberjacques]

CYBER: Whatever happened to “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”?..

RA: I already answered that issue, albeit briefly. And, just fyi, I think you’ll find some interesting things if you did a word-context study on the original language meaning behind that passage…just some food for thought should you wish to pursue it.

Hmm, context. Okay, context is always helpful, so here goes. Ahem!

Jesus and His disciples were, at the time this scene took place, in Cesarea-Phillipi. They were standing at the foot of a large rock/cliff, into which was built a temple to Pan. At the foot of this cliff, where they were standing, was a spring of sorts, an opening in the rock out of which flowed a stream. This opening was known as the Gates of Hades. This temple of Pan was built on a rock that would eventually be eroded by a stream, ensuring that it would eventually collapse, even if the temple itself was kept in good condition in the mean time.

Jesus told Peter that His Church would be built upon a rock that would never be subject to erosion or collapse. It would never be worn down by the ages or suffer destruction. That stream is still there, and has worn a large ragged hole in the side of the cliff. The ruins of the temple can also be found, which has suffered some considerable erosion of its own.

Hopefully this bit of context has been helpful!

 

[Ag_not]

AG:

AG: And thanks for the heads up that the church Im going to tomorrow for the first time is fully of witchcraft and black magic rituals. I’ll be wearing my eye for protection and stuffing my pockets with garlic. Phew.

**RA: **Ha HA. All kidding aside, you do realize, of course, that youv’e taken my commentt UTTERLy out of context, right? I mean, please tell me that was a joke an you’re not serious. Oh, please, tell me that. … You know, context is a real pain sometimes, but give it a shot. RA
​

OK. I apologise if I’ve got you wrong. Unreservedly. But, you did say this

Grace: His Church is not rife with it. That’s the difference. It’s a difference of terms. When you say, “Church,” you are referring to “all people who say they are Christian.”

RA: Actually, it is rife with it. And I find it extremely convenient that the Church is “the Church” as an unified organization under a hierarchy leadership, until that becomes a problem. Then, all of a sudden, it’s a church, but not a unified “Church” and nothing can be done about the priests, Catholics in good standings, and whole Catholic communities are suddenly not part of the real church – although they certainly look, act, talk, walk, and receive the apparent sanction of the church. Priest are under the authority of Rome and can be defrocked. RC are under the authority of Rome and can be excommunicated. Neither is done. The RCC is full of witches, black magick followers, pagans, occultists – all in good standing. I’ll have more to say about this in print over the next year.

Now, regardless of context, if I read somewhere that something is FULL of something - then that’s what the author is saying. It’s FULL OF …

So when you said the Catholic Church is FULL OF WITCHES, PAGANS and OCCULTISTS - then I take you at your word. You are, after all, a wordsmith. IF you meant that there are SOME pagans or SOME occultists in the church, then that’s a completely different statement. And I’d probably agree - in that some catholics MAY be also practicing occultism, because unless I speak to every single catholic in the whole world I simply couldnt know. So, SOME, I might accept, but you clearly said the church is RIFE with and FULL OF occultists. That puts it on a completely different level. And as someone who is searching and developing a faith, Ive come across you, and your writings, and of course if I read what you said I have to process it, even if it is only to discount it. So your statement WILL have an impact, one way or another, and you made a very strong and profound statement regarding the intergety of the catholic church.
Mind you, you did later say:

GRACE: I think you should start a thread in here about your concerns of witchcraft and the occult in the church. A month or so ago, I was responding in a thread in these forums with someone who was involved in the occult. I told the poster in no uncertain terms that she needed to quit it.

RA: Yeah, perhaps I’ll do that when I am satisfied myself with what I feel I need to know about the issue before talking at length about it.

Now, that seems to mitigate against your statement that the Church is FULL of occultists - here you seem to be saying that you need to research more. That’s fair enough.
But someone anti catholic could jump on the first statement you made, and go ah hah - see, that RA guy, award winning journalist, even HE says the catholic church is rife with and full of pagans, witches, and occultists, and he should know what he’s talking about !!!

Oh, and of course I was joking about stuffing my pockets with garlic when I went to catholic mass for the first time yesterday… I’m not THAT crazy !!!

(I hid a wooden stake and a mallet in my purse instead) ​

 

[mariyka]

Oh, and of course I was joking about stuffing my pockets with garlic when I went to catholic mass for the first time yesterday… I’m not THAT crazy !!!

(I hid a wooden stake and a mallet in my purse instead)

A crucifix would suffice.

 

[cthulhubryan]

I’ve always been curious about the whole celibacy of the clergy thing. I mean, they were allowed to marry before right?

 

[graceandglory]

I’ve always been curious about the whole celibacy of the clergy thing. I mean, they were allowed to marry before right?

It’s Scriptural, Bryan. It was a suggestion by St. Paul.

**I wish that all were as I myself am. **(celibate) But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another

1 Corinthians 7

 

[Glorfindel]

Hi Ag,

My three reaons are:
a.) Christ alone
b.) Faith alone
c.) Scripture alone

My suggestion to you would be to do all you can to learn both the catholic and non-catholic side to the story.

The catholic church has many gifted apologists such as Fr. Pacwa, Gary Michuta, Robert Sungenis, and others who regularly or at least sometimes engage in formal debates with leading protestant apologists.

If I were you I would take a listen to these debates and study them. I think you will find that many professional catholic apologists are using arguments that are very different than what you find here at catholic.com.

If you want to know more, send me a PM.

Big Ditto! Christ Alone, Faith Alone, Scripture Alone. As far as a “Pope” Christ did not make such an animal! He did not create a line of mini-Petes, and they are fallible …even when speaking on matters of faith from “Peter’s throne”. (which also makes no sense, Saint Peter was KILLED in Rome for the faith not given a chair! You ONLY have one High-Priest, Mediator, and Advocate…Christ Jesus Our Lord. You do not need Mary or the Saints. Christ is EVERYTHING! Pax!

 

[flameburns623]

Sorry, I’ve had to scan these past several pages rather quickly and think I am likely to cover a lot of ground that has been covered previously by others.

Richard Abanes: I don’t know if you’ve ever actually looked at or addressed the point I made earlier that Catholic soteriology does in fact concur with you on most of the elements you are bringing out. What you are crashing into in this thread is the Molinist mindset that dominates a lot of contemporary Catholic teaching and which places a considerably higher degree of emphasis on living-out the holy life than does the Augustinian thread of Catholic theology. You would probably have these same sorts of pitched battles on a Protestant webforum dominated by folks of an Arminian persuasion. It is kind of tough, if one chooses to emphasis the element of holy living as a part of one’s soteriology, to avoid the impression that one is trying to save one’s self by one’s own good works.

So far as the issue of “shifting Catholic dogma”: this has been fixed and settled in it’s basic framework for vast centuries. Usually what folks mean when they bring this up are the issues of Papal Infallibility and the Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and of the Assumption. These were certainly anciently and widely believed in the Church, whether one believes they are dogmas that bind the consciences of all Christians always and everywhere.

Cardinal John Henry Newman, a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, wrote an extended study of the ‘development’ of Christian dogma, before his conversion to Catholicism. Very difficult for me to summarize on a webforum with a maximum post length per individual post of 6000 characters but here’s a thumbnail overview:

Christian dogma is that part of Christian believe that has been believed always, and everywhere, to be attributable to Christ and His Apostles. Where circumstances have rendered some element of that dogma unclear, councils have clarified–but not added to–that dogma. Hence, the concept of ‘trinity’ was settled and the term settled on at Nicaea. Christ’s nature, being True God and True Man simultaneously was settled on in a council. These dogmas are discernible in Scripture, they are believed by all Christians, Protestant and Catholic, but the authority which settled that these are the appropriate interpretations of Scripture emanate from Church Councils and not from Scripture itself–the Arians actually worked very hard to prove their competing theologies from Scripture as well.

Hence, Infallibility and the Marian dogmas are not ‘new inventions’ in the sense I believe you suppose them to be but are developments in much the same way that the Trinity and concept of the hypostatic union were developments of doctrine.

I think that in general you will not find that Catholic dogma emerges invented out of whole cloth at some readily-discerned fixed place in history. I especially challenge you to look more carefully at the citations Catholics reference when they argue that their dogmas and doctrines are documented among the Early Church Fathers. Their employment of such arguments is much more convincing and scholarly than those of the cultist groups with which you have worked in the past, IMHO.

The problem with Mormon apologists, for example, who claim that their doctrines can be discerned in the ECF’s is that they generally misquote those ECF’s–for example, they like to suggest that their doctrine of Eternal Progression is found in the teaching of ECF’s on theosis: this is a distortion of the doctrine of theosis (an Eastern Orthodox term roughly corresponding to what Western Christians understand as sanctification and glorification).

OR the LDS apologist employs sources such as the Gnostics which are NOT part of the body of Christian literature known and received as among the Early Church Fathers. There are reasons for this that I just haven’t the space to go into here–basically, even the Gnostics rarely or never claimed their doctrines were directly derived from the Apostles or from Christ but were based upon an ‘inner knowledge’ the Gnostics had somehow intuited.

Most Evangelical Protestant Bible Colleges and seminaries teach the ECF’s as part of their curriculum, and train their students in the distinctions to be made between these and the writings of the Gnostics and other late heretics. My point is that Eastern Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants draw from sources that we all universally accept as having a fair degree of authority in helping us discern what were early Church beliefs and practices.

Most Protestant laypeople have only a passing familiarity with the ECF’s, and even most pulpit pastors put the study of these aside once they are in-harness. Those who do stay abreast of such writings tend to gravitate towards ‘high-church’ liturgical sorts of worship–that is where the evidence tends to point–and often they convert to Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Hence the expression “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant”. That, from another Protestant convert to Catholicism, GK Chesterton I believe.

As I review some more of this thread I may post a couple more comments. Feel free to respond to what I’ve already written.