Pastor Steve Anderson wants to help you Catholic idolaters

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
Well you know what they say: what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have numerous Protestant friends who believe that if a Catholic says something here then it represents Catholicism. Shouldn’t it then be equally true that Anderson’s statement represent Protestantism?

“With whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:2
Click to expand...
What is Pastor Andersons anonymous name here on caf? I can’t find any posts that would seem to be him!
 
SyroMalankara said:
It cannot be defined by what it is, only by what it mimics and what it is not, also varying in each instance according to the convenience of the presenter and/or perceiver. Analagous to an elephant in a dark cave being described to each other by 15 children speaking varying languages
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. The good ol’ definition in the negative. Useful when seeking blanket condemnations and wide-brushed anathemas on anyone who isn’t identical to ourselves.

Rather than drawing arbitrary lines and expecting those we’ve grouped together to answer for others we’ve haphazardly grouped with them, why not engage groups on their own merits?

In this case, we should not expect a Methodist or a Lutheran or an Anglican to answer for Steve Anderson. After all, according to his arbitrary line drawing, these three groups are all essentially Roman Catholic.
 
steido01 said:
Ah, yes. The good ol’ definition in the negative. Useful when seeking blanket condemnations and wide-brushed anathemas on anyone who isn’t identical to ourselves.

Rather than drawing arbitrary lines and expecting those we’ve grouped together to answer for others we’ve haphazardly grouped with them, why not engage groups on their own merits?

In this case, we should not expect a Methodist or a Lutheran or an Anglican to answer for Steve Anderson. After all, according to his arbitrary line drawing, these three groups are all essentially Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
You are right. And for myself coming from the evangelical side of Protestantism (whatever that is supposed to be) I feel Anderson has drawn a circle around himself that excludes most people.

Actually I am happy this all hit the fan because now the onus is on Catholics here at CAF to come forward immediately and clarify when a fellow Catholic is misrepresenting Catholicism.
No longer will I need to think that every Catholic poster truly represents the Church if other Catholics identify them as in error.
 
Not sure why there would be an analogous situation with Catholics. Everyone clearly knows where the buck stops in Catholicism. It is not so clear among the various protestant bodies. Who does Anderson answer to? A bishop, his committee, a larger parachurch org, Christ Himself? It becomes less clear, the more one asks. Ultimately, when corrected, I can foresee him resorting to his interpretation of Scripture alone as accurate, and everyone else diabolically deceived.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Not sure why there would be an analogous situation with Catholics. Everyone clearly knows where the buck stops in Catholicism. It is not so clear among the various protestant bodies. Who does Anderson answer to? A bishop, his committee, a larger parachurch org, Christ Himself? It becomes less clear, the more one asks. Ultimately, when corrected, I can foresee him resorting to his interpretation of Scripture alone as accurate, and everyone else diabolically deceived.
Click to expand...
:sad_yes:
 
SyroMalankara said:
Not sure why there would be an analogous situation with Catholics. Everyone clearly knows where the buck stops in Catholicism. It is not so clear among the various protestant bodies. Who does Anderson answer to? A bishop, his committee, a larger parachurch org, Christ Himself? It becomes less clear, the more one asks. Ultimately, when corrected, I can foresee him resorting to his interpretation of Scripture alone as accurate, and everyone else diabolically deceived.
Click to expand...
That is what I mean of drawing a circle around himself. Peter J’s concern of perceiving that a Catholic poster would only espouse ideas in agreement with the CC verifies that several do not.
 
ajcstr said:
OK,

So I’ll start by saying most people won’t have the stamina for this but I really enjoyed watching it. It’s a discussion between Steven Anderson and James White on the King James Only movement. The full video is 2.5 hrs but its also broken into 3 shorter segments. I found it very interesting, of course there is the token Catholic discussion in there, but what struck me is the disagreement between the two.

Full:

youtube.com/watch?v=xJrptikLjq8

Shorter:

youtube.com/watch?v=KL3mWM4TSh8&t=1907s

youtube.com/watch?v=ct45JH-tq0g&t=481s

youtube.com/watch?v=bauywqnWEp0&t=2403s
Click to expand...
Actually that last part is 1 hour, if you pick it up at the 19:30 mark there is some interesting discussion on the ESV, Calvinism, and hell.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Not sure why there would be an analogous situation with Catholics. Everyone clearly knows where the buck stops in Catholicism. It is not so clear among the various protestant bodies. Who does Anderson answer to? A bishop, his committee, a larger parachurch org, Christ Himself? It becomes less clear, the more one asks. Ultimately, when corrected, I can foresee him resorting to his interpretation of Scripture alone as accurate, and everyone else diabolically deceived.
Click to expand...
Again, what are the “various Protestant bodies” and why do you group them together? Are they like “various Christian bodies?” Or “various Monotheistic bodies?” Or “various religious bodies?”

Should my atheist friends ask Catholics to answer for human sacrifices to Molech? After all, both are “religious.”
 
steido01 said:
Ah, yes. The good ol’ definition in the negative. Useful when seeking blanket condemnations and wide-brushed anathemas on anyone who isn’t identical to ourselves.

Rather than drawing arbitrary lines and expecting those we’ve grouped together to answer for others we’ve haphazardly grouped with them, why not engage groups on their own merits?
Click to expand...
I hope you’re not the only one who did not pick up on the glaring sarcasm. Excuse the seeming oversimplification, but if you protest the Catholic Church dogmatically, you’re a protesting Christian. The only unity and solidarity that exists in Protestantism, is protesting; I doubt that is what Jesus was referring to when he prayed for unity in John 17. If you do not want to be “haphazardly grouped with them”, inadvertently or deliberately, then stop protesting, it’s really that simple.
steido01 said:
In this case, we should not expect a Methodist or a Lutheran or an Anglican to answer for Steve Anderson. After all, according to his arbitrary line drawing, these three groups are all essentially Roman Catholic.
Click to expand...
An anathematized Christian (Steve Anderson) has no right grouping non-anathematized Christians (Catholic/Orthodox etc.) with other divided, anathematized Christians, according to your expectation. 👍
 
Peter_J said:
Well you know what they say: what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I have numerous Protestant friends who believe that if a Catholic says something here then it represents Catholicism. Shouldn’t it then be equally true that Anderson’s statement represent Protestantism?

“With whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.” Matthew 7:2
Click to expand...
It would be equally true, assuming the people (friends) in question, on either side, are equally simple minded. That is to say, not true. But equally so. A balanced statement. You crafted it well.
 
steido01 said:
Again, what are the “various Protestant bodies” and why do you group them together? Are they like “various Christian bodies?” Or “various Monotheistic bodies?” Or “various religious bodies?”
Click to expand...
For one thing, the speaker groups himself in that way. The threefold division is often used to describe itself by those within and without those denominations. Are they like 'various Xtian bodies"? In a way yes. Protestant can be and have been defined as those not Catholic and not Orthodox, holding to fully or partially orthodox ideas on various historical theological statements in regard to faith and doctrine. By consensus, this normally excludes Mormons and JWs, and any fringe groups that deviate from the mainstream beyond some point.
Should my atheist friends ask Catholics to answer for human sacrifices to Molech? After all, both are “religious.”
Click to expand...
Some have, but surely one can see how protestantism is generally recognized as mainstream nonCatholic, nonOrthodox Christian denominations
 
SyroMalankara said:
For one thing, the speaker groups himself in that way.
Click to expand...
No, the speaker is quite clear that he groups himself apart from Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, and other sacramental Christians decrying these as essentially Roman Catholic (he even considers Reformed Baptists “Catholic”). So it makes no sense to expect these groups to answer for a speaker who clearly says he is not of them (and they would agree that he is of a different spirit).
SyroMalankara said:
The threefold division is often used to describe itself by those within and without those denominations. Are they like 'various Xtian bodies"? In a way yes. Protestant can be and have been defined as those not Catholic and not Orthodox, holding to fully or partially orthodox ideas on various historical theological statements in regard to faith and doctrine. By consensus, this normally excludes Mormons and JWs, and any fringe groups that deviate from the mainstream beyond some point.

Some have, but surely one can see how protestantism is generally recognized as mainstream nonCatholic, nonOrthodox Christian denominations
Click to expand...
I’m aware of the traditional (ab)use of the term “Protestant.” I’m hoping folks re-think the use of it, since it is a meaningless term entirely defined by the negative. To say “If something is not A, it must therefore be B,” entirely discounts the possibility that C, D, E, F … X, Y, Z or even other characters and languages exist. It’s not logical or useful in the least. To expect a “T” to sound like an “O” is not only obtuse, it’s ignorant of the T’s character.
 
steido01 said:
I’m aware of the traditional (ab)use of the term “Protestant.” I’m hoping folks re-think the use of it, since it is a meaningless term entirely defined by the negative. To say “If something is not A, it must therefore be B,” entirely discounts the possibility that C, D, E, F … X, Y, Z or even other characters and languages exist. It’s not logical or useful in the least. To expect a “T” to sound like an “O” is not only obtuse, it’s ignorant of the T’s character.
Click to expand...
Maybe you see it differently than many. The analogy that would concur with yours that highlights how I, and perhaps some others, view it is as such - this being labelled by size: A (Catholicism), E (Eastern Orthodoxy), I (Oriental Orthodoxy), O (Church of the East), U (other smaller Apostolic Churches recognized as true Churches by A thru D), and Consonants B thru Z (Protestantism). Now while A,E,I,O and U are different in some ways, they retain vowelism. Consonants B thru Z while different maintain consonantism. Once in a while within the vast variety of consonantism the letter Y acts like a vowel (High church Anglicanism, High church Lutheranism, Mar Thoma Syrians, Georgian Baptists, Assyrian Evangelicals, etc) but for the most part Y is a consonant and only takes on vowel characteristics as an exception and inconsistently.

Does X or Y need to answer for B? Perhaps not as such, but they do share the same broad category that differentiaties itself from vowels.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Maybe you see it differently than many. The analogy that would concur with yours that highlights how I, and perhaps some others, view it is as such - this being labelled by size: A (Catholicism), E (Eastern Orthodoxy), I (Oriental Orthodoxy), O (Church of the East), U (other smaller Apostolic Churches recognized as true Churches by A thru D), and Consonants B thru Z (Protestantism). Now while A,E,I,O and U are different in some ways, they retain vowelism. Consonants B thru Z while different maintain consonantism. Once in a while within the vast variety of consonantism the letter Y acts like a vowel (High church Anglicanism, High church Lutheranism, Mar Thoma Syrians, Georgian Baptists, Assyrian Evangelicals, etc) but for the most part Y is a consonant and only takes on vowel characteristics as an exception and inconsistently.
Click to expand...
Is “vowelism” synonymous with Apostolic Succession? 😃
 
Wannano said:
What is Pastor Andersons anonymous name here on caf? I can’t find any posts that would seem to be him!
Click to expand...
Heh. :o Okay I guess you win on that one … if having an account on the Catholic Answers Forum is the criterion for representing Protestants. 😃

That being said, my conscience has been bothering me since I said Mr Anderson represents Protestants. I think what might make us all equally happy is if we said Mr Anderson represents Christians. :hmmm:
 
GKC said:
It would be equally true, assuming the people (friends) in question, on either side, are equally simple minded. That is to say, not true. But equally so. A balanced statement. You crafted it well.
Click to expand...
Well thank you. 🙂
 
IV: 2129 of: vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

Educate yourself, this “Pastor Steve” person cannot judge whether or not we adore God as greater than the image or not, and we don’t. We know that God is above images that we have and images we wear or keep in plain view are for adoration purposes.

Example: I love (enjoy) the painting of Saint Michael the Archangel at his altar featured in St. Peter’s Basilica. I also love (enjoy) the statue atop Saint Angelo’s Castle of Saint Michael the Archangel. I may even love (enjoy) all of these depictions so much that I will enroll with his scapular! But, while I may believe they can be holy, in my life for the purpose of the greatness our perfect creator created him to be, they won’t be loved (truly) as I love him as made by our most glorious and perfect creator who is always above all.
 
Wannano said:
You are right. And for myself coming from the evangelical side of Protestantism (whatever that is supposed to be) I feel Anderson has drawn a circle around himself that excludes most people.

Actually I am happy this all hit the fan because now the onus is on Catholics here at CAF to come forward immediately and clarify when a fellow Catholic is misrepresenting Catholicism. **
No longer will I need to think that every Catholic poster truly represents the Church if other Catholics identify them as in error**.
Click to expand...
Interesting post. 🙂 You’ve presumably realized that not everything I said on this thread was 100% serious, and I’m guessing that’s true of you as well.

Anyhow …

You inspired me to spend a little time on Youtube, starting with the video in question. I don’t see anywhere in the comments that says that Anderson doesn’t speak for Protestants in general (but admittedly I didn’t read every single comment). I did see this, “Shame on us as christians all for speaking against each other , we have the same bible and the same belief and doctrine , i love my protestant brothers and im willing to die for them.” but presumably that poster is Catholic.

Then I looked at some Catholic videos. This one: youtube.com/watch?v=P-gNg_jTeRw&t=78s
said “Comments are disabled for this video.” so not much I can deduce from that. But the same channel had this one: youtube.com/watch?v=odLn8cK-KhU
with comments – none of which say “this doesn’t represent all Catholics”.

Anyhow … maybe it was a fool errand, but that (admittedly very small) amount of evidence suggests that neither side is better than the other about saying “This/that doesn’t represent us.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top