"Liberalism is a Sin"

[amarischuk]

RSiscoe:

Adam,

I would like to have a discussin with you. We can either do it publically, or privately. It’s up to you.

Sounds fair, but my excuses in advance for I am currently teaching in Taiwan so I do not have many resources with me and my time on the internet is limited.

RSiscoe:

Do you know what I believe leads to many people today becoming heretics? It is not study, for many people study yet do not become heretics, but rather more convinced of the truth; what I believe causes so many people to become heretics is reading bad material.

I actually disagree with this statement right off the bat. In fact my first post on this forum was on this very subject right after I left the seminary: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=2132&highlight=amarischuk

I do not think that you can truly study deeply and not come to many conclusions at variance with traditional Catholicism. So much of Catholicism relies on mythology, superstitution and an anthropomorphic view of God. Everything from the fall to the return of Jesus to judge the living and the dead.

If you search my user name amarischuk you will find that I have posted on such topics as the problem of inspiration in the bible, the disgusting ‘faith’ of Abraham which destroys the thomistic notion of natural law, papal infallibility, contraception, evolution etc.

It is not “study” that leads to heresy, but studying the writings of liberal heretics, that leads many into heresy. Liberalism is very seductive and easily leads the unwary astray. It is also very subtle in its manner of attacking the truth. Actually, in one way, liberalism attacks the truth, by truth: that is, it deceives by a redirection away from the primry truth towards lesser truths - from supernatual truth, to natural truth; from objective truth, to subjective guilt.

Actually, my shift to the liberal side was due mainly to conservative authors like Pope John Paul II, Christopher West, Germain Grisez, Fr. Most, Jacques Maritain, Frederick Copleston, Christopher Dawson, Hilair Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Arnold Lunn, Etienne Gilson. But most importantly it was my reading the bible and studying it in two courses at the seminary that caused a loss of faith in inspired scripture. The obvious/literal reading I often found disgusting or mythological. And the attempts by moderate Catholics like Raymond Brown, Lawrence Boadt, Leslie Hoppe, Donald Senior, etc. failed to rid the problems. They tried but could ot explain away the inconsistencies, plain inaccuracies, anthropomorphisms.

Another problem as you pointed out is that there is such a dichotomy in conservative Catholicism which approaches dualism. Aquinas, a liberal by most standards, tried to resolve this but the platonist thread still lingers on. The natural/supernatural, material/spiritual dichotomy of St. Paul leads to many problems.

Why did an infinite God create finite man knowing full well that (according to Catholicism) many, if not most will go to hell? What is the purpose of this life if really we are supposed to focus on the next so much? What kind of tyrant makes His children run through a test most will apparently fail in order to have eternal life? What kind of tyrant condemns people to an eternity of punishment for temporal choices they made without full knowledge? and how does grace enter the picture without leading to the problem of reprobation of the damned as the Calvinists believe?

Those are just some questions. I don’t expect answers to all of them. Though I have discussed it earlier, I think that the pivotal topic is the relationship between faith, reason and revelation.

Adam

 

[dcdurel]

I think the definition of liberalism by John Henry Newman is the idea that **there is no absolute truth in religion. **

Thus, liberals in the Catholic Church deny that Church is infallible in teaching the truth and say that the Church is wrong on some truths. Or they will try to deny other teachings as being teachings of the Catholic Church in order to deny them as truths. Or they will try to separate Jesus from His Church and claim to believe in Jesus but not in “organized religion”. Or they will try to set up straw men, and claim that science and the teachings of the Catholic Church are opposed.

I my opinion it seems to me that Liberalism is the result of pride, in which men think they know more than God, because they think if they follow God's teachings they will not be happy.  Since they "know" that following God's teachings will make them unhappy, they reject the teaching.  But if they don't reject God entirely or reject His Church entirely, they are force into liberalism, where there is no absolute truth in religion, but only some things are true. 
For example, those who reject Church teachings on contraception, divorce and remarriage, homosexual acts, etc., but who still claim to be Catholic, are essentially spreading liberalism.

 

[mlchance]

amarischuk:

Why did an infinite God create finite man knowing full well that (according to Catholicism) many, if not most will go to hell? What is the purpose of this life if really we are supposed to focus on the next so much? What kind of tyrant makes His children run through a test most will apparently fail in order to have eternal life? What kind of tyrant condemns people to an eternity of punishment for temporal choices they made without full knowledge? and how does grace enter the picture without leading to the problem of reprobation of the damned as the Calvinists believe?

So, after all of your study, what you’re basically left with a high school atheist’s laundry list of pseudo-objections? Everything boils down to some question-begging questions all revolving around the idea that God is a big meanie?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[RSiscoe]

Adam,

Before we get started, I am going to ask you to do what liberals ask others to do: Have an opened mind. That is difficult for most liberals to do because they often suffer from intellectual pride. They consider others to be ‘ignorant fools’ who believe superstitious non-sense that any “enlightened” mind has long ago rejected: they consider them “pious fools”, in a state of delusion…their satisfaction with life being a result of their own ignorance.
This intellectual pride usually places a barrier between themselves and others. “They are intellectual fools, we are the enlightened”, they think to themselves. Why would these “enlightened ones” (in their own eyes) even consider the arguments of the ‘ignorant fools"? It makes no sense. Thus their mind becomes closed to all but their own views. Those who love to promote “open mindedness” are actually the most closed minded of all.

I am going to ask you to keep your mind open. Think back on your former days when you were a conservative. Were you unhappy? Is that the reason for your “conversion”? Or were you “converted” into heresy through the “knowledge” you gained? Were you forced, almost against your will, into unbelief? If so, are you at least willing to consider the other side… just one more time? Will you give it just one more chance? Are you willing to so incline your will that you will say "Lord, though I do not believe, yet I am willing to try and believe?
At this point you neither believe, nor do you “want” to believe. I am asking you to give it one more try; and thus to incline your will so that, although you do not believe, you at least “want” to believe. To do this, I am going to ask you to consider all the positives of your life when you believed. Were you unhappy? Or were you content and fairly happy with your life? Think about your friends and all of the good things back then.

After considering these things, be willing to give belief one more chance. What do you have to lose? I am not going to ask you to believe something that you intellectually cannot believe. I am only asking that you give belief one more chance. I am asking you to “want” to believe so that your mind will be more open. I know I am asking a lot, but what do you have to lose?

 

[dcdurel]

amarischuk:

. So much of Catholicism relies on mythology, superstitution and an anthropomorphic view of God. Everything from the fall to the return of Jesus to judge the living and the dead.

First, it is impossible to understand Catholicism today without praying the Rosary daily, with at least the intention asking for the grace of learning God’s will and doing His will. You will be blinded by error without serious prayer. It is inevitable.

Because the Popes highly recommend the daily rosary and those who refuse to do so will fail to see the error in the writings of others, due to lack of God’s grace, from the sin of pride.

**The basic teachings of Catholicism don’t come from scripture or from those theologians or scholars who study scripture. **

Why did an infinite God create finite man knowing full well that (according to Catholicism) many, if not most will go to hell?

There is no Church teaching anywhere that says many, if not most will go to hell. Only the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope have authority to teach for the Church.

What is the purpose of this life if really we are supposed to focus on the next so much?

To know, love and serve God. This is Church teaching.
Why do you not know this?

When we do so, we will be living this life in a way that brings the greatest happiness to the world.

What kind of tyrant makes His children run through a test most will apparently fail in order to have eternal life? What kind of tyrant condemns people to an eternity of punishment for temporal choices they made without full knowledge?
Adam

You have no idea who will apparently fail or not. Only God can judge and we have no idea what percentage will fail. It does no good to quote the bible and some Doctor of the Church’s comments on that verse. He is not infallible. Only the Church is infallible. And there is no Church teaching saying that most will fail.

You know good and well that mortal sin requires full knowledge.

People go to hell of their own free will. God condemns no one to hell against his own will. He wants everyone to repent and join Him in heaven. People are in hell because they never wanted to repent and don’t want to repent. They don’t want to be in heaven where they will have to obey God.

 

[dcdurel]

amarischuk:

So much of Catholicism relies on mythology, superstitution and an anthropomorphic view of God. Everything from the fall to the return of Jesus to judge the living and the dead.

I never really answered this false idea.

You believe the above, because you were falsly taught that the basic teachings of Catholicism comes from the bible.
That is totally false.

Peter and the apostles learned the Gospel from Jesus and the Holy Spirit, NOT from studing the bible.

The bible is only useful when it is interpreted strictly according to the Sacred Tradition that has come from the apostles. This is rarely done in Seminaries, which tend to promote Protestantism, (scripture alone).

Raymond Brown and others like him call the Catholic approach “ultramontane” and any other disparaging term he can think of.

Raymond Brown was the greatest promoter of the “scripture alone” viewpoint among those who think they are Catholic than any Protestant who ever lived. He was better at promoting “scripture alone” than anything Protestants could come up with in almost 500 years. Of course, you know he called it by another name. He simply called it “modern biblical exegesis”, etc, etc.
But, it was the exact same thing, “Sola scriptura”.
And it seems that the teachers in the bad Catholic universities and seminaries have blindly picked up this heresy lock, stock and barrel.

 

[amarischuk]

So, after all of your study, what you’re basically left with a high school atheist’s laundry list of pseudo-objections? Everything boils down to some question-begging questions all revolving around the idea that God is a big meanie?

If the questions are so elementary, why not answer them? Or perhaps you fail to grasp the actual depth of the problems such as the pelagian/calvinist free will problem.

But I suppose the fact that Banez, Molina, Aquinas, Cajetan, Duns Scotus and Ockham all disagree is too elementary for your majestic learning. Please enlighten me.

Before we get started, I am going to ask you to do what liberals ask others to do: Have an opened mind

But not so open that my mind falls out. You would be very surprised but I do not have too many firmly held opinions. I have the ability to suspend judgment usually. Such as I do not haev a formed opinion on heaven and the resurrection of the body.

I am an atheist who does believe in God, just not really the hocus-pocus anthropomorphic God of so much mythology. Therefore it would be better to describe my views towards God as either deism or something approaching latent pantheism which Aquinas steers close to and so does Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

Think back on your former days when you were a conservative. Were you unhappy? Is that the reason for your “conversion”? Or were you “converted” into heresy through the “knowledge” you gained? Were you forced, almost against your will, into unbelief?

My happiness has nothing to do with the truth of a position. I know many muslims, Seventh Day Adventists and athiests who are truly happy people. But that doesn’t make them right.

Honestly, I was converted from a conservative position by actual deep study, especially of conservatives. It had nothing to do with happiness, I was happy at the seminary and I am happy teaching in Taiwan living as a pagan. I would say that I would love to believe but it is not a possibility to reject all that I have learnt about the history and development of doctrines, the evolution of the earth, certain philosophical problems etc.

 

[RSiscoe]

amarischuk:

Honestly, I was converted from a conservative position by actual deep study, especially of conservatives. It had nothing to do with happiness, I was happy at the seminary and I am happy teaching in Taiwan living as a pagan. I would say that I would love to believe but it is not a possibility to reject all that I have learnt about the history and development of doctrines, the evolution of the earth, certain philosophical problems etc.

Great. Thank you for your honesty and for maintaining and open mind and “suspending judgement”. That is a very wise way to approach this delicate subject.

Now, how would you like to begin? Would you like to begin with reason, faith and revelation? If so, maybe you should start by stating what exactly you have a problem with.

You also mentioned free will, God’s imnopotence, salvation / damnation etc, and how that could all fit together (maybe that wasn’t expressed exactly right). If you would like to begin with that, pose a few problems and I will attempt to address them.

And I appreciate your sincerity in approaching this honestly. Since you said you would actually like to believe, but that you are unable to at this time, you may want to beging to pray that God will help you to believe, and to see any truth that is presented to you. Certainly you would not be opposed to having God assist you in believing the truth.

 

[amarischuk]

First, it is impossible to understand Catholicism today without praying the Rosary daily, with at least the intention asking for the grace of learning God’s will and doing His will. You will be blinded by error without serious prayer. It is inevitable.

And when I was praying the rosary daily, attending mass daily, confessing weekly, spending hours in adoration, I suppose I was blinded by error despite these things? I guarantee I know more about Catholicism than 90% of the people on this forum and even more than many of the priests at the seminary where I studied and the Opus Dei chaplain at my former University (with whom I am still a good friend).

But that aside I don’t believe in your gnostic ‘illuminati’ nonesense. It is contrary to Thomism to suppose that without prayer, reason cannot lead us to certain truths. Or are you willing to throw away natural law like Germain Grisez did to support your point? If you move to a divine command theory of morality then I would argue that through some twist of fate, I am now the Catholic and you are ironically the heretic.

Raymond Brown and others like him call the Catholic approach “ultramontane” and any other disparaging term he can think of.

Raymond Brown was the greatest promoter of the “scripture alone”

You obviously have never read a word by Brown. Not only was his critical analysis of scripture amongst the most important advances in theology of the 20th century, but he dispelled many myths and showed the need for the magisterium and the development of doctrine by riding Catholicism of so many anachronistic readings of scripture. One example is that his position is that scripturally it is uncertain that there is a Christian priesthood, but as a priest himself, it becomes obvious that he believes that obviously there is another source for such as magisterial position.

There is no Church teaching anywhere that says many, if not most will go to hell. Only the Pope and those few bishops in union with the Pope have authority to teach for the Church.

It is estimated that 1/3rd of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. It is tradition Catholic teaching that those who die without baptism cannot enter heaven. Why not check out one of the threads on that subject?

You know good and well that mortal sin requires full knowledge.

To die with only original sin is traditionally enough to exclude one from the beatific vision.

But the fact that “full knowledge” is required raises another problem: is it possible to sin mortally?

and RSsicoe, you said in another thread:

No heretic is ever saved. Every single heretic, without exception, will descend into hell immediately upon death, and remain there for as long as God is God. That is the dogmatic teaching of the Church that will never change.

(emphasis in the original) forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=29179

Are you willing to say that I am currently on the path to hell? What about my uncle who died recently? never having professed any belief in God in his life as far as I know. To his end believing only (to ironically quote the bible) from ashes to ashes, dust to dust. I suppose he is being eternal tormented by daemons. What a nice thought.

Adam

 

[Bob_Baran]

RSiscoe,

Are you familiar with Robert P. George’s book The Clash of Orthodoxies? Chapter 12 of the book talks about the very subject you elaborated on. Professor George devotes an entire chapter on this subject of Liberalism, "Religious Values and Politics. The chapter is centered on two types of liberalism, one he describes as Contemporary and the other as Old-fashion liberalism of which JPII is a defender. The book not only is a good read but it explains the differences in the two types and how it affects Catholics and our beliefs. You might want to read it!

 

[StCsDavid]

amarischuk:

Why did an infinite God create finite man knowing full well that (according to Catholicism) many, if not most will go to hell? What is the purpose of this life if really we are supposed to focus on the next so much? What kind of tyrant makes His children run through a test most will apparently fail in order to have eternal life? What kind of tyrant condemns people to an eternity of punishment for temporal choices they made without full knowledge? and how does grace enter the picture without leading to the problem of reprobation of the damned as the Calvinists believe?

Adam

Hey Adam,
You’re obviously a very well-read fellow (most likely more than me) and I’ve enjoyed reading your arguments. It appears to a large degree you’re trying to solve the mystery of God with the limitations of mere human logic and reason. You also appear to underestimate the vastness of God’s mercy.

God tells us “my ways are not your ways…my thoughts are not your thoughts.” There’s just no way for us to comprehend the entirety of God or be privy to His plan for us.

Yours in Christ

David

 

[Brad]

amarischuk:

You can call liberalism a heresy, false opinion, objectively erroneous set of beliefs, but you can never call it a sin without abandoning 2000 years of Catholic moral philosophy.

You are right. Holding to a philosophy is not a sin. However, a bad philosophy can lay the groundwork for justifying sin. This is what liberalism does. Seeing as it is (in your words) a heresy, false opinion, and objectively erroneous, I don’t see why anyone would want to be mislead to such an extent - especially if their intent is to follow the Truth (Jesus).

 

[Brad]

amarischuk:

It is contrary to Thomism to suppose that without prayer, reason cannot lead us to certain truths.

Reason can lead to certain truths. However, reason cannot contradict divine revelation, as revealed through Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Magisterial Teaching. You cannot make up your own teaching of Scripture that contradicts doctrine if it suits your fancy. You can’t call yourself a Catholic priest if you take a vow of obedience to the teachings of the Church and then teach whatever you think is best because some other scripture “scholar” thought it was true.

 

[Brad]

The book the thread refers to is online here:

ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/LIBSIN.HTM

 

[RSiscoe]

RSiscoe:

No heretic is ever saved. Every single heretic, without exception, will descend into hell immediately upon death, and remain there for as long as God is God. That is the dogmatic teaching of the Church that will never change.

amarischuk:

Are you willing to say that I am currently on the path to hell?

"a man that is a heretic… is condemned by his own judgment" (Titus 3: 10,11).

Now Adam, you are a self professed heretic. It should not surprise you to learn that I, as a Catholic, believe heretics are one the path to hell. Heresy is a mortal sin against the first commandment; and as such is the worst possible sin, as both St. Augustine and St. Thomas taught:

“[Heresy] is the sin which comprehends all other sins”(St. Augustine).

“The gravity of sin is determined by the interval which it places between man and God; now sins against faith separates man from God as far a possible, since it deprives him of the true knowledge of God; it therefore follows that sin against faith is the greatest of all sins” (St. Thomas).

The Church has defined de fide that all heretics are lost. Therefore, it should not surprise you that I would consider a heretic on the road to perdition.

Adam:

What about my uncle who died recently? never having professed any belief in God in his life as far as I know. To his end believing only (to ironically quote the bible) from ashes to ashes, dust to dust. I suppose he is being eternal tormented by daemons. What a nice thought.

That is not a nice thought at all. I hope he is not in hell being tormented by demons, but from what you described it doesn’t look too good. Hopefully he went through a conversion before death. God will always call to us, but he will never force us to respond (darn free will). If we do not respond by cooperating with God’s grace, it is our own fault if we are lost, not God’s.

God did His part after the fall, by redeeming us. Since God cannot contradict Himself, He does not take away our free will (which He gave us), nor does he force us to act against it. Since God is infinitely Just, he cannot tollerate sin. Therefore the sinner, who does not have his sins forgiven, will not enter into heaven, but will forever abide under the wrath of God’s justice.

That is not God’s fault. God’s mercy is available to all - and He wants to forgive us; but He is not merciful to the one who refused to repent. Why? Because God is all perfect. Every attribut of God is absolutely perfect, including His justice. If God were merciful to the one who refused to repent, it would be contrary to His Divine Justice, and thus show a defect in His justice.

The only way to overcome God’s infinite justice is to receive His mercy; and we receive His mercy when we respond to His actual grace and repent of our sins.

Is your uncle in hell? Maybe: “The tree falls the way it leans”. But then again he may have responded to God in the last moments of his life and received God’s mercy. Let’s hope it was the latter.

 

[RSiscoe]

Bob Baran:

RSiscoe,

Are you familiar with Robert P. George’s book The Clash of Orthodoxies? Chapter 12 of the book talks about the very subject you elaborated on. Professor George devotes an entire chapter on this subject of Liberalism, "Religious Values and Politics. The chapter is centered on two types of liberalism, one he describes as Contemporary and the other as Old-fashion liberalism of which JPII is a defender. The book not only is a good read but it explains the differences in the two types and how it affects Catholics and our beliefs. You might want to read it!

If you have time, can you explain what he talks about in the book?

Thanks

 

[dcdurel]

amarischuk:

And when I was praying the rosary daily, attending mass daily, confessing weekly, spending hours in adoration, I suppose I was blinded by error despite these things? I guarantee I know more about Catholicism than 90% of the people on this forum and even more than many of the priests at the seminary where I studied and the Opus Dei chaplain at my former University (with whom I am still a good friend).

But, you quit praying the rosary with the intention of receiving God’s grace to overcome your sins.

It is not enough to know facts about the Catholic religion, because at the same time you can pick up errors that are not true that you think are also facts of the religion.

The fact that you stated that there is superstition in the bible, etc, is  proof that you picked up error, even if it did teach superstition, which it doesn't..  Because the basic teachings of the Catholic Church DO NOT COME FROM THE BIBLE.  How could they?    The apostles were teaching and preaching the Gospel before a single word of  the New Testament was written?  They did not learn the Gospel from the bible. They learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. 
 Jesus did not say that we are to learn His Gospel by reading the bible. He did not say we are to learn His Gospel by reading the writings of scripture scholars or theologians.  He did not say we are to learn His Gospel by studing scripture.  The only way we can learn His Gospel is by learning what the Church teaches and preaches.  NOT what scripture scholars teach and preach, NOT what theologians teach an preach and NOT what theologians and scripture scholars SAY the Church teaches and preaches.

But that aside I don’t believe in your gnostic ‘illuminati’ nonesense. It is contrary to Thomism to suppose that without prayer, reason cannot lead us to certain truths.

Of course it can. Even Socrates and others learned certain truths. But, they also learned lots of errors. Even the greatest of the Greek philsophers had serious errors. It is only through prayer and Church teaching that you can distinguish to any reasonable degree what is truth and what isn’t. Because we all have a fallen human nature, thus, it is impossible for those outside the Church to know clearly all basic truths. We still need God’s supernatural revelation. And even if you were taught Church teachings clearly, which you weren’t, you still need prayer and God’s grace, especially through constant Eucharistic adoration, to continually understand that truth and not be led astray by error. Grace is not a one time thing. The Church teaches, give us this day our DAILY bread, means we always need God’s grace, every day, because we have constant drives to sin, (greed, lust, sloth, pride, etc, ) which never, never quit.

 

[dcdurel]

You obviously have never read a word by Brown. Not only was his critical analysis of scripture amongst the most important advances in theology of the 20th century, but he dispelled many myths and showed the need for the magisterium and the development of doctrine by riding Catholicism of so many anachronistic readings of scripture. One example is that his position is that scripturally it is uncertain that there is a Christian priesthood, but as a priest himself, it becomes obvious that he believes that obviously there is another source for such as magisterial position.

Brown could not write a single paragraph without an error.
His books were small and cheap, and I got a lot of them.
He paid lipservice to the magisterium, but he ignored it whenever he wanted to.
His philosophy, from beginning to end was** pure “sola scriptura” Everything for him was bible interpretation, sola scripture, pure protestantism. **Unless he couldn’t find any support, such as his promotion of women priests. Since there is no scriptural support, he had to reduce his argument to ad hominem attacks on those who didn’t agree with him. That is pure pride, pride, pride, pride.

He loved to promote Protestant scholarship. He loved to say how Protestant scholars were the greatest.
Yet, this is despite the well known, universal fact, that there isn’t a single teaching on which Protestant scholars agree.

How can protestant scholarship be scientific and true if there isn’t a single teaching upon which they agree?
Scott Hahn, who use to be Protestant, and is a very good scholar, points out that there isn’t a single verse of scripture which all Protestants can agree on interpretation.
Protestants cannot even know what scripture is without apostolic Tradition.

It is estimated that 1/3rd of pregnancies end in a miscarriage. It is tradition Catholic teaching that those who die without baptism cannot enter heaven. Why not check out one of the threads on that subject?
To die with only original sin is traditionally enough to exclude one from the beatific vision.

Cannot enter heaven, or can never enter heaven?
The Church teaches at the end of the world, there will be a final judment and everyone will go to heaven or hell. No more limbo. Thus, those in limbo will have to go to heaven, since the Church also teaches no one goes to hell except through there own fault.

Just the fact that you never saw all the errors in Raymond Brown means that your heart was not turned to God at that time. You must have something else that you are putting first.

Constant prayer is NOT an option.

 

[amarischuk]

Brown could not write a single paragraph without an error.
His books were small and cheap, and I got a lot of them.
He paid lipservice to the magisterium, but he ignored it whenever he wanted to.

Yes, his books are all small and cheap, like:
%between%
Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library)
928 pages
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385247672/qid=1104369487/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-2990581-0781736?v=glance&s=books

An Introduction to the Gospel of John (Anchor Bible Reference Library)
384 pages
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385507224/qid=1104369487/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/102-2990581-0781736?v=glance&s=books

Death of the Messiah, Volume 2
752 pages
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385494491/qid=1104369487/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-2990581-0781736?v=glance&s=books

Birth of the Messiah
752 pages
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385494475/qid=1104369487/sr=1-7/ref=sr_1_7/102-2990581-0781736?v=glance&s=books

Since there is no scriptural support, he had to reduce his argument to ad hominem attacks on those who didn’t agree with him. That is pure pride, pride, pride, pride

And your arguments against him are what? You haven’t provided a single example. The only example was provided by myself and I showed how his position that the priesthood is not explicit in the New Testament shows that he wasn’t a sola scripturalist.

The Church teaches at the end of the world, there will be a final judment and everyone will go to heaven or hell. No more limbo.

You obviuosly do not know the Thomistic view of limbo. Limbo is merely the highest level of hell. Didn’t God teach you that truth about Catholic while you were busy praying?

Your entire argument is faulty. First you say that I cannot learn the truth about catholicism without prayer (which is a illuminati-gnostic bunch of BS which kills classic Thomism, but you have no qualms about abandoning Catholic philosophy to support your ultra-conservative, anti-intelletual views). So I show that I did live a life of devout prayer and study. So now you say that I obviously wasn’t praying well enough or for the right things because doubts crept in.

How am I to know that you are the one who has led the proper life of prayer? Perhaps it is the devil leading you astray by preventing the workings of the Holy Spirit in his Church? The argument cuts both ways.

Jesus did not say that we are to learn His Gospel by reading the bible. He did not say we are to learn His Gospel by reading the writings of scripture scholars or theologians. He did not say we are to learn His Gospel by studing scripture. The only way we can learn His Gospel is by learning what the Church teaches and preaches.

Actually, I seem to recall reading that Jesus never said to follow what the Church (by which you mean the magisterum) teaches but rather to sell ones’ cloak and follow him.

I was taught never to get into an argument with a fool because spectators might not be able to tell who was who. If you continue with your ad hominem attacks on me for supposedly not praying and on Catholic scholarship in general, I will simply refuse to respond. You are only securing my views that conservative Catholicism is anti-intellectual, reactionary, fundamentalist ignorance. You are doing a great disservice to the Church.

Adam

 

[katherine2]

You are only securing my views that conservative Catholicism is anti-intellectual, reactionary, fundamentalist ignorance. You are doing a great disservice to the Church.

I understand what you mean. I was going through a major shift to the right until I found the internet and started reading postings of views i thought were ugly, mythical stereotypes of the conservatives.

Boy, did I get a lesson!