Prodigal's Isle

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socrates4Jesus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
heknowsmyname said:
I think there seems to be an error in your process here…(at least i see it a little bit differently).

God doesn’t forsake us! It is those who forsake him…but of course, there are consequences to that, but he is there always loving and prodding…and working. But he doesn’t mess with “free will” and the consequence to those who forsake him and don’t follow him is hell.

That isn’t GOD’s doing, in forsaking them. THEY forsook Him.

Does that make sense?

😉

…
Click to expand...
Yes, i understand! the Catholic Church deserted Him.

👍

But you don’t believe that, do you?

🤷
 
JerryParker,

your comments resonated w/ me in that I left Protestantism for what appear to be the same reasons and had to choose between “East” and “West.” I too have my own little quiet doubts but I believe that I would have them w/ Eastern Orthodoxy too now and even more so w/ Protestantism. One has to get off the fence sometime right Socrates4Jesus;) No, pray and keep seeking Socrates4Jesus; I shouldn’t give you a hard time or any [more] pressure. You will move when the time is right for you; it is good to work through these things as you are doing.

Nick
 
pneuma07 said:
… PS About my present difficult connections, I just know that any time errors appear (680 or 718 or whatever) :(. Next week anyway I’ll be back home to my usual connection…
Click to expand...
608 and 718 are DUN errors. Have you looked into switching to DSL, cable, or FIOS, if they are available? Here are some troubleshooting steps to try:
Error 718: Point-to-Point Protocol (PPP) Timeout

http://editor.actrix.co.nz/images/error718.gif

A PPP connection negotiation was started, but terminated because the remote computer did not respond within an appropriate time.

POSSIBLE CAUSES:


  1. *]Poor phone line quality.
    *]A problem with the server at the ISP.
    *]The wrong user name or password was entered.
    *]The wrong phone number was dialed by the connection.
    *]The server type settings is incorrect on the computer.
    *]The modem needs an initialization string to stabilize its operation.

    POSSIBLE RESOLUTIONS:

    1. *]If you are using extension cords, or faxes, or any similar device, disconnect it and try again.
      *]Find out if your ISP is experiencing any server problems.
      *]Make sure the correct user name and password have been entered.
      *]Verify that the correct access number is being used.
      *]Make sure the server type in dial-up networking is set to the correct protocol (for example, PPP) and the TCP/IP check box is selected.
      *]Use a initialization string such as +ms=v90 for smoother operation.
 
Pax said:
Soc in Christ,

Your concerns about Jesus speaking ambiguously and thus deceiving people is IMHO a bit off the mark. I do not believe that Jesus was ambiguous. The problem is that none of us were there to hear his teaching directly for the three years of his public life. His words were clear to his disciples and they were taught by him and the the Holy Spirit through and after Pentecost. The apostolic tradition passes on to us the true meaning of Jesus rather clear words.
Click to expand...
Yes, i understand His words might not have been ambiguous to them, but they are to me. Are you saying i’m mistaken to think that there is more than one possible, and contradictory, interpretation of His words?

🤷
Pax said:
Sometimes Jesus words get twisted just as do Paul’s words and some of the other scriptures to the destruction of those that twist them. At one point Paul says this to Timothy:

1 Tim 1:3-7

It isn’t that the words are ambiguous as much as it is that some people will do the things described by Paul and Peter in twisting the scriptures. It isn’t Jesus…it’s sinfulness and weakness of men. No matter how things were worded, there would be those that would be twisting the words and leading others astray. This is easily seen in your own experience where you find Trinitarian doctrine unmistakeable in scripture where others do not.

God bless.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that i, by even considering different interpretations of Jesus’ words, am distorting the Sacred Scriptures? I mean, when i say that i’m confused about Jesus’ intended meaning, and i don’t know whether He means this,1a.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it.

or this,1b.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [of your profession of faith] I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it.do you think anyone would clearly see that the true meaning is (1a), and such a person would have to go out of his way (and perhaps even out of his mind) to twist the Sacred Scriptures into an unholy poisonous pretzel in order to come up with a crazy idea like (1b)! Is this your meaning?

🤷

My thought is that thoughtful and reasonable and unbiased and sincerely truth-seeking people can just as easily think He meant (1b) as He did (1a). My thought is that it’s really no wonder i’m confused, and that such confusion has turned my world upside down to the point where i’ve come seeking help.
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
It sounds to me that Paul is making a universal declaration regarding the sinful nature of preventing people from marrying:The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry…

(1 Timothy 4:1-3)

When i consider who it is that forbids people to marry–the Magisterium, Bishops, and even the Pope, my mouth drops to the floor! What does he say of such people? He calls them those who:
  • abandon the faith
  • follow deceiving spirits
  • advocate things taught by demons
  • have their consciences seared with a hot iron
:eek:

If he spoke publicly this way of the Pope today, would he not be removed from the office of Apostle? Would he not even risk excommunication? Be completely sincere with me Pax, and tell me what you truly think.
Click to expand...
My Friend,
This line of thought got me to thinking about something I had heard not long ago about a heresy in Southern France. I have linked it [HERE (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01267e.htm) In particular note under their morals section:
As generation propagates the slavery of the soul to the body, perpetual chastity should be practiced. Matrimonial intercourse is unlawful; concubinage, being of a less permanent nature, is preferable to marriage. Abandonment of his wife by the husband, or vice versa, is desirable.

Given the views of this sect I would think that St Paul was refering to these people rather than to The Church’s decision to require men to decide between marriage and priesthood.

Peace
James
 
Socrates4Jesus said:
Yes, i understand His words might not have been ambiguous to them, but they are to me. Are you saying i’m mistaken to think that there is more than one possible, and contradictory, interpretation of His words?

🤷

Are you saying that i, by even considering different interpretations of Jesus’ words, am distorting the Sacred Scriptures? I mean, when i say that i’m confused about Jesus’ intended meaning, and i don’t know whether He means this,1a.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on [you] this rock I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it.

or this,1b.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock [of your profession of faith] I will build my church, and the gates of death will not overcome it.do you think anyone would clearly see that the true meaning is (1a), and such a person would have to go out of his way (and perhaps even out of his mind) to twist the Sacred Scriptures into an unholy poisonous pretzel in order to come up with a crazy idea like (1b)! Is this your meaning?

🤷

My thought is that thoughtful and reasonable and unbiased and sincerely truth-seeking people can just as easily think He meant (1b) as He did (1a). My thought is that it’s really no wonder i’m confused, and that such confusion has turned my world upside down to the point where i’ve come seeking help.
Click to expand...
Soc in Christ,

It isn’t you that I worry about in terms of the quest for truth and looking for the correct interpretation. You have before you quite a few interpretations, and some are contradictory. If those that have twisted the scriptures had not done so and presented us with heresies we would not have the problems we have today. You are not the creator of a heresy. You are unfortunately, however, in the position of having to sort through the interpretations that are heresy. I do not envy the you in the task at hand.

God bless.
 
Pax said:
Soc in Christ,

Your concerns about Jesus speaking ambiguously and thus deceiving people is IMHO a bit off the mark. I do not believe that Jesus was ambiguous. The problem is that none of us were there to hear his teaching directly for the three years of his public life. His words were clear to his disciples and they were taught by him and the the Holy Spirit through and after Pentecost. The apostolic tradition passes on to us the true meaning of Jesus rather clear words.

Sometimes Jesus words get twisted just as do Paul’s words and some of the other scriptures to the destruction of those that twist them. At one point Paul says this to Timothy:

1 Tim 1:3-7
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies
Click to expand...
Endless genealogies, that’s an interesting statement. It also seems to be a particular selling point in the catholic church. The long an perhaps questionable history that is held out as evidence of authenticity. The passing on of the Priesthood in the OT proved that men were not saved or in a relationship with God because of succession of the office, why should we believe its different to day?
Click to expand...
 
tukfryer said:
Endless genealogies, that’s an interesting statement. It also seems to be a particular selling point in the catholic church. The long an perhaps questionable history that is held out as evidence of authenticity. The passing on of the Priesthood in the OT proved that men were not saved or in a relationship with God because of succession of the office, why should we believe its different to day?
Click to expand...
Succession is hardly what Paul was talking about in terms of genealogies. You are making quite a stretch here.

The Catholic claims are true in that they are consistent with what was true of the OT Jewish oracles and Moses seat, but most importantly with what Jesus established and the apostles implemented. I don’t know how much of this thread you have read but it’s worthy perusing. Questionable history? We don’t believe that Catholic claims exceed the facts. Perhaps you do, but often the critics of Catholic claims argue against something other than the claims themselves.

Catholics do no claim that everyone that holds an office is in a proper relationship with God. I do not believe that non-Catholics would claim that all ordained ministers within their denominations are in a proper relationship with God either.
 
Pax said:
Succession is hardly what Paul was talking about in terms of genealogies. You are making quite a stretch here.

The Catholic claims are true in that they are consistent with what was true of the OT Jewish oracles and Moses seat, but most importantly with what Jesus established and the apostles implemented. I don’t know how much of this thread you have read but it’s worthy perusing. Questionable history? We don’t believe that Catholic claims exceed the facts. Perhaps you do, but often the critics of Catholic claims argue against something other than the claims themselves.

Catholics do no claim that everyone that holds an office is in a proper relationship with God. I do not believe that non-Catholics would claim that all ordained ministers within their denominations are in a proper relationship with God either.
Click to expand...
My mistake then, I always thought that there was a line of succession from Peter to Pope, Ratzinger. Its not a genealogy in the sense of it being a blood line, but it is a “type of genealogy” that places Ratzinger in his chair. A spiritual genealogy if you will, I’m not at all certain about the method or the official point of transmission of this power but catholics do frequently make mention of this inherited “genealogy” line as evidence. I don’t think its a stretch. In fact I would bet your catholic genetic line spans more years than it did from Abraham to Jesus. I’ll let you go now and not make mention of the other warning Paul gave.
“occupy themselves with myths”“and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith;”
Compared to scripture what would constitute or qualify as a myth? Myth, wives tail, hearsay? it must be something that was not taught or mentioned by the Apostles? Any ideas?
 
Tukfryer,

to my knowledge, St. Irenaeus was the first to use the Apostolic succession of the Churches in an apologetic sense. Rather than roll out the lists from all the Churches, he used Rome as an example:

St. Irenaeus of Lyons: 2nd Century

“It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times…Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” (newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) (9/ 03/ 09)

“3. The blessed apostles, then…committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate… To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him…Clement was allotted the bishopric…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate…” (Ibid.)

surely you would be a little more cautious of charging him with any wrongdoing; one who is said to have, as a youth sat at the feet of St. Polycarp who, in turn is said to have been the disciple of St. John.
 
JRKH said:
Priests are certainly people. But they are people who choose a different path.
So the man is not forbidden to marry, he just needs to make a choice. He is aware of the requirements when he makes that choice.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
And would you say, James that the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition have chosen a different path from Sacred Scripture?
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife …

(1 Timothy 3:2)
 
paul_c said:
No, I am saying that if a person is willing to give up everything for the glory of God, you know he is very serious about it. This is not to say that a married man can’t be serous about God as well (I am married), But think about your initial premise: " there would be more priest if they could be married." That means what you want to add is people who put marriage above serving God as a priest… Those people just don’t have the moral authority (myself included) that the celibate priest has. He has given up EVERYTHING to serve his flock. That deserves tremendous respect.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.

👍
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Socrates4Jesus,

**You wrote: ** * I’d like to be rescued, but the only way [that] I can see to get off this God-forsaken place is to decide, once and for all, whether the Catholic Church is an authority [that] I can trust to get me home safely. That’s my goal. The method I’d like to take is to avoid heated debate, have a little fun, and take my time to really think through what each of you have to say. So, please convince me: Tell me why I should trust the authority of the Catholic Church. *​

I have felt this dilemma, too, for a long time. The only churches that have any really demonstrable authority are the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Holy Roman Church (Catholic). It seems like torture to come to full, unconditional, 100% agreement with all that the Catholic Church teaches, especially where it differs from the Orthodox Church. I say, “make the leap”: you know that the Catholic Church has just claims. Don’t deny outright what seems dubious in small points of doctrine; just “put it on the back burner” for the Holy Spirit to work on this in your mind and soul.

It defies reason and common sense to stick with Protestant or Anglican denominations that clearly are not “the real thing” as churches, nor do they demonstrate any long term stability. So – ditch 'em and “swim the Tiber” (or the Bosphorus, if that is an option) – and leave the miniscule "odds-‘n’-ends to work out later. Nobody in the Catholic Church is going to burn at the stake for having quiet doubts about Purgatory, Limbo, indulgences, and that sort of thing, which, anyway, are rather minor points. I am not sure, but I think that the old style Recantation – an horridly sombre and frightening thing to undergo and one that used to touch on all sort of doctrinal trivia – is any longer required to convert.

Pax, Jerry Parker
Click to expand...
I think, Jerry that it is best that i do what is best, and i should be a man Socrates describes, who
… caring not whether his words are many or few, his only aim is to attain the truth.

(Theaetetus, 172)

I want to be set free, and rescued from Prodigal’s Island, and it seems to me Jesus is right when He says,
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

(John 8:32)

It seems to me the way off this lonely place is is to know the truth first, and only then let that truth set me free. Don’t you agree?
 
Pax said:
Soc in Christ,

It isn’t you that I worry about in terms of the quest for truth and looking for the correct interpretation. You have before you quite a few interpretations, and some are contradictory. If those that have twisted the scriptures had not done so and presented us with heresies we would not have the problems we have today. You are not the creator of a heresy. You are unfortunately, however, in the position of having to sort through the interpretations that are heresy. I do not envy the you in the task at hand.

God bless.
Click to expand...
And i’m grateful for your lending a hand with the task at hand. Maybe i can learn from your experience. Please tell me how you know (1a) rather than (1b) is the specific truth our Lord was trying to convey.
 
I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to “look fore and aft” …

(Cratylus, 428)
Pax:

“What am i saying?” is indeed what i’m asking myself at the moment. For the logical conclusion to which i’ve come is that Jesus has deceived me. Yet, what is possible for me to do–that is, to deceive–is an impossibility for Him. That is, it is, if i can believe the biblical author:… it is impossible for God to lie …

(Hebrews 6:18)I suppose this means one of three things: (1) Allowing me to be deceived is not the same as lying, or (2) the writers of Hebrews is mistaken and it is actually possible for Jesus to lie, or (3) it is irrational and unreasonable to believe any interpretation of Christ’s words besides the correct interpretation.

Now, i need some courageous assistance in my struggle against this monstrosity, for my gut feeling is that (2) is false, though i might be mistaken. You and i already appear to believe that (3) is false, though some might disagree. That leaves us with (1). And (1) is a horrid creature, ready to devour my soul, if we fail to slay it! I will not run from it. I’ve come to far to turn back and flee now! Stand by my side, then, Pax, and i’ll stand by yours, as mortal Eolis stood bravely by immortal Hercules. Fear not, but take up your sword and cleave off the first head of the beast. And with my torch i’ll sear the bloody stub left behind to ensure two heads do not rise up to take it’s place.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
tukfryer said:
My mistake then, I always thought that there was a line of succession from Peter to Pope, Ratzinger. Its not a genealogy in the sense of it being a blood line, but it is a “type of genealogy” that places Ratzinger in his chair. A spiritual genealogy if you will, I’m not at all certain about the method or the official point of transmission of this power but catholics do frequently make mention of this inherited “genealogy” line as evidence. I don’t think its a stretch. In fact I would bet your catholic genetic line spans more years than it did from Abraham to Jesus. I’ll let you go now and not make mention of the other warning Paul gave.
“occupy themselves with myths”“and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith;”
Compared to scripture what would constitute or qualify as a myth? Myth, wives tail, hearsay? it must be something that was not taught or mentioned by the Apostles? Any ideas?
Click to expand...
Tukfryer in Christ,

This sort of thing would be the topic of another thread, but I believe you are making a huge stretch for a number of reasons. Likewise, we would have some disagreements about what would be myths etc., but again that would be for another thread.

God bless.
 
Socrates4Jesus,

**You wrote: ** *It seems to me the way off this lonely place is is to know the truth first, and only then let that truth set me free. Don’t you agree? *​

Yes, I do agree with you. However, it is a question of assessing what the extent of “knowing the truth” is before one in good conscience convert. I simply do not think that one has to be entirely certain about minor matters, even if the Catholic Church has defined them as it has, before one can convert. After all, in the meantime, while one agonises over things of minor importance like Purgatory, Limbo, and indulgences (to enumerate the same points that I mentioned before, to which most born Catholics pay only minor heed), the believer who is on the threshold of Catholic conversion is languishing spiritually in some sect that has no valid ministry, no valid sacraments, is preaching a combination of partial truth and much error, etc., all of which is detrimental to the soul’s needs.

Better it is to “make the leap” and deal with the small stuff later (with, of course, the Holy Spirit’s inner work in process in one’s soul), that “later” being time in which one is an eucharistic communicant and is praying aright with other Christians. One can lose faith altogether if too much time elapses while one is in the dumpheap of Protestantism!

Pax, Jerry
 
Soc in Christ,

I get the picture and agree that God allows us to be deceived. I believe that the Lord does this in the interest of allowing us to freely choose. You are on a very honest but difficult quest. Everyone’s experience differs and those experiences determine and shape what lens they view things through and how things are colored. There is some fog and there is light and there is shadow. There is just enough light for those who seek the truth to eventually find it, yet there is sufficient shadow to make things nearly impossible to see for those that do not actively pursue the truth. Take joy and hope in knowing that you are one of those that honestly seeks the truth. The Lord will provide and never disappoints.

God bless.
 
Jerry_Parker said:
Socrates4Jesus,

**You wrote: ** *It seems to me the way off this lonely place is is to know the truth first, and only then let that truth set me free. Don’t you agree? *​

Yes, I do agree with you. However, it is a question of assessing what the extent of “knowing the truth” is before one in good conscience convert. I simply do not think that one has to be entirely certain about minor matters, even if the Catholic Church has defined them as it has, before one can convert. After all, in the meantime, while one agonises over things of minor importance like Purgatory, Limbo, and indulgences (to enumerate the same points that I mentioned before, to which most born Catholics pay only minor heed), the believer who is on the threshold of Catholic conversion is languishing spiritually in some sect that has no valid ministry, no valid sacraments, is preaching a combination of partial truth and much error, etc., all of which is detrimental to the soul’s needs.

Better it is to “make the leap” and deal with the small stuff later (with, of course, the Holy Spirit’s inner work in process in one’s soul), that “later” being time in which one is an eucharistic communicant and is praying aright with other Christians. One can lose faith altogether if too much time elapses while one is in the dumpheap of Protestantism!

Pax, Jerry
Click to expand...
I think the fact is, that most people have issues to resolve with any faith arrangement they have. We are almost always works in progress. Find the one that you are most sure is the truth and work toward understand the minor stuff as you mature in the faith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top