S
Sunstone
Guest
I am not speaking of doctrine.
- Status
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Could you tell us what you’re talking about then?
L
Lemuel
Guest
What are you speaking of?
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Yeah, I’m a little curious too
L
lilypadrees
Guest
Same here…
Stephen168
New member
After a four post very clear and concise explanation by (name removed by moderator) which you understood at the time, you now call it convoluted and damning. At the same time you love to go on and on and on and on and on about all the Catholic authors you read, and how you have perfect understanding. Dishonest, ignorant, or some of both?
G
gazelam
Guest
Perhaps, because this is specifically a debate forum? Not much of a debate if only one side is presented…
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I’ve read CS Lewis, great writer, but I don’t know everything about Anglicanism because of him
U
USAFwife
Guest
@gazelam I was speaking of CAF as a whole. Not this specific thread. But if CAF is a debate forum, then that must be implied somewhere and I missed it.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
I have never said I have a “perfect understanding” of Catholicism. This is why I ask questions and seek to understand. The two threads I linked to should demonstrate that quite well.TOmNossor:
After a four post very clear and concise explanation by (name removed by moderator) which you understood at the time, you now call it convoluted and damning. At the same time you love to go on and on and on and on and on about all the Catholic authors you read, and how you have perfect understanding. Dishonest, ignorant, or some of both?
That I defend myself from you calling me a liar doesn’t mean I think I have a perfect understanding.
That you think it does evidences much of our problem.
I do think AL and the Argentine Bishops letter (this letter came out after my November discussion) are hugely problematic. If you followed the link:
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=80409&pid=1357839#pid1357839
You will see me further exploring it and you will see me defending AL against Catholics who attack it and claim it is MORE than just problematic.
Charity, TOm
Last edited:
T
TOmNossor
Guest
So since you didn’t respond to my “The path to avoid it can easily be walked for homosexual marriage, for abortion, for numerous objectively grave sins,” am I to assume you agree.TOmNossor:
After a four post very clear and concise explanation by (name removed by moderator) which you understood at the time, you now call it convoluted and damning. At the same time you love to go on and on and on and on and on about all the Catholic authors you read, and how you have perfect understanding. Dishonest, ignorant, or some of both?
“I know my partner and I are not in a valid same sex marriage, but we have adopted 2 kids and each have one from our previos marriages. I fear he will leave me and our kids if I ask him to live as brother and brother. He works and I just manage the home. I know it is wrong, but I have ‘diminished consent’ so it is only a venial sin and I can continue in a state of grace and partake of the Eucharist.”
I don’t think I brought this up before it was pointed out on the linked discussion. It is IMO damming like I said.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Yes, due to your ignorance, you would have that opinion.
Last edited:
Stephen168
New member
Yes, after being told TWICE that you understood, you continue; continue by coming to this thread to teach your “understanding” of it to the Catholics.
Stephen168
New member
Saint Vincent de Lerins’ famous maxim: "Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus) everywhere, always, by all.
Tom loved to use this maxim as a bulwark against Catholic doctrine as John Henry Newman said, “It lays down a simple rule by which to measure the value of every historical fact, as it comes, and thereby it provides a bulwark against Rome,…” Tom would say something like, that Catholic teaching doesn’t stand up to the maxim of St. Vincent, and John Newman agrees. Therefore, implying St. Vincent and Cardinal Newman agree that a Catholic teaching, practice, or method is wrong.
But when called on it, he could back pedal and say he never claimed the teaching, practice, or method was wrong because the statement was factual true, but it was false by implication.
But the Cardinal’s quote ends with, “it provides a bulwark against Rome, while it opens an assault upon Protestantism.” Or in Tom’s case, an assault on Mormonism. An assault because unique Mormon teachings have been believed by Christians nowhere, never, and by no one.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
I find it hard pressed, to believe that the Mormon church is a restoration of God’s church, since a bunch of other groups were claiming that at the exact same time. Some trinitarian, some Unitarian, I’m not sure how many were polytheist.
Stephen168
New member
I think it is a Catholic Answers Forum; where you get Catholic Answers to questions. Of course it does vary from that a lot to become a discussion about many things forum. A few Mormon’s think it is a Catholicism teaching forum where Mormons try to give Catholic Answers.
Stephen168
New member
Mormon scripture, the Book of Abraham, translated by Joseph Smith created many of the unique Mormon teachings: the nature of the priesthood (no blacks), God is near the star Kolob, the exaltation of humanity, a pre-mortal existence, rejection of creation ex nihilo, the first and second estates, and the plurality of gods. All of these teachings come from a translation by Joseph Smith declared scripture by the Mormon Church, which science established to be an Egyptian funeral text. These are not a restoration of lost Christian beliefs, it is something Joseph Smith made up.
T
TOmNossor
Guest
It is SIMPLE logic. If “deliberate consent” is the loophole through which gravely sinful adultery becomes merely a venial sin, there are NUMEROUS sins that are chosen (but in the face of other unpleasant results if the sin is instead rejected) and are grave matter. Then the SAME logic that supports AL can be argued to be downgraded due to lack of complete “deliberate consent.”
Again, I say this problematic!
In the PM where I continued my CA discussion I said, “I doubt it impossible to offer ‘mitigating factors’ associated with most if not all continued sin of a grave matter.”
Without prompting from me on the thread I linked a Catholic offered that this “deliberate consent” LOGICAL loophole could be extended to same sex marriage:
https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/s...owthread.php?tid=80409&pid=1357927#pid1357927
This is simple logic. What “ignorance” do you speak about?
I have also said that just because the logic COULD be used, doesn’t mean it will be used. Of course Cardinal Cupich and Father James Martin seem poised to use such logic today and more and more Cardinals like Cupich are being made by Pope Francis each year. It was in the face of such Cardinals that encouraged what Catholic Answers taught was impossible (divorced and remarried Catholic partaking of the Eucharist) that Jimmy Akin agonized over a response on CA Live about 2.5-3.5 years ago. It wasn’t a done thing was his position. It is a done thing now. Cardinal Cupich does not believe Catholicism is what Catholic Answer has taught for years. I do not think Pope Francis believes Catholicism is what Catholic Answers has taught for years.
But, again “due to my ignorance?” No, it is simple logic.
Charity, TOm
Stephen168
New member
Between the ages of 13 and 17, I attended Boy Scouts at the local Mormon Ward. During that time, I learned from my friends what the Mormons believed and some of their practices.
The importance of the family (The Joy of Love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church) seemed similar to the Catholic Church and I liked the idea of Family Home Evening. FHE bumper stickers were on the back of almost every station wagon in the county. It was nice.
I also learned about the Book of Mormon, its story and what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church believed about it.
Scientist were already telling us the American Indians were from Asia, not the Middle East. I knew the Book of Mormon as claimed by Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church was not true. If the Book of Mormon was not true, then Joseph Smith was not a Prophet. If Joseph Smith was not a Prophet, then the Mormon Church is not true.
Therefore, I never left the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Holy Eucharist. I don’t plan to leave because Tom’s confused.
I have NEVER had a desire to go to Mormon Forum to tell them what I know about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. I don’t need their permission to know they are wrong.
Here you are; seeming to ask permission from Mother Church for permission to leave. Trying to find some little piece of something to make it OK.
Leaving a Church with the history, apostolic succession, the eucharist, reason, logic, the foundation of western culture, for what? A Church with no history, no eucharist, no apostolic succession, and so irrational, you set standards for Mother Church which the Mormon Church could never reach. So irrational you have to invent a different Mormon Church in your own mind so you can deal with.
Happiness is the Holy Eucharist.
The importance of the family (The Joy of Love experienced by families is also the joy of the Church) seemed similar to the Catholic Church and I liked the idea of Family Home Evening. FHE bumper stickers were on the back of almost every station wagon in the county. It was nice.
I also learned about the Book of Mormon, its story and what Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church believed about it.
Scientist were already telling us the American Indians were from Asia, not the Middle East. I knew the Book of Mormon as claimed by Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church was not true. If the Book of Mormon was not true, then Joseph Smith was not a Prophet. If Joseph Smith was not a Prophet, then the Mormon Church is not true.
Therefore, I never left the Church established by Jesus Christ and the Holy Eucharist. I don’t plan to leave because Tom’s confused.
I have NEVER had a desire to go to Mormon Forum to tell them what I know about the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. I don’t need their permission to know they are wrong.
Here you are; seeming to ask permission from Mother Church for permission to leave. Trying to find some little piece of something to make it OK.
Leaving a Church with the history, apostolic succession, the eucharist, reason, logic, the foundation of western culture, for what? A Church with no history, no eucharist, no apostolic succession, and so irrational, you set standards for Mother Church which the Mormon Church could never reach. So irrational you have to invent a different Mormon Church in your own mind so you can deal with.
Happiness is the Holy Eucharist.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
The Eucharist is called the “source and Summit” of our faith for a reason
- Status