Take a look at this list of flip flops

[ReformedCatholic]

You make some good points. As you can see, not everyone views these issues as “flip flops,” or even takes them seriously.

Personally, I don’t know many of the answers to the issues you bring to light, but I think many of your questions are valid ones. It is often difficulty for us to take the answer “I am right because I say so” as satisfaction to our inquisitiveness or doubt.

You may find some answers here, you may not. Keep searching until you find answers that satisfy you.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

I am curious about the “no salvation” thing.

Rest of the list, I remember a site called something like beggar king that answered it item by item, does anyone have a copy of that site to post in a new thread?

 

[montanaman]

Hey, how is it that he got suspended so fast when Giver is given free reign of the forums spouting off about his personal revelations? (For that matter, I’m surprised I’M still around sometimes.) ExpectAMiracle was definitely in the vein of the typical Trojan horse troll, but it was only two posts. He was condescending, sure, but not quite ban-worthy.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

I couldn’t believe this ridiculous list posted above.
This nonsense is refuted ably in Karl Keating’s CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM. I won’t dignify it with a refutation.
I don’t what to do: get mad or keep laughing at it.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[Eileen_T]

Jaypeeto4:

I couldn’t believe this ridiculous list posted above.
This nonsense is refuted ably in Karl Keating’s CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM. I won’t dignify it with a refutation.
I don’t what to do: get mad or keep laughing at it.

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

I think we really need to develop the habit of laughing as loud as we can whenever we encounter such nonsense.

I am reminded of a tape I listened to the other week - either Patrick Madrid or Scott Hahn - where he pulled up in front of a rectory where there were statutes of Our fady and the children at Fatima, and said something about Catholics not only worship statues, but we have statues that worship statues.

 

[malachi_a_serva]

RobNY:

Just as in the Catholic Church today there is no blanket prohibition of married candidates becoming priests. The Church has never supported marriage after ordination, but has allowed those who are already married to become priests. In the West this is generally prohibited. In the East, married men may still become priests.

Question, can a married man become a priest in North America? As it states above, “in the West this is generally prohibited”. Just looking for clarification. If it is prohibited, I am wondering why it would be as Jesus chose Peter to be his Apostle and he was married. I am sure you have all explained this before, but it puzzles me.

Thank you.

 

[RobNY]

malachi_a_serva:

Question, can a married man become a priest in North America? As it states above, “in the West this is generally prohibited”. Just looking for clarification. If it is prohibited, I am wondering why it would be as Jesus chose Peter to be his Apostle and he was married. I am sure you have all explained this before, but it puzzles me.

Thank you.

A married man cannot become a priest in the west, although there are exceptions to the rule. For instance, married converts from a faith such as Anglicanism.

Why is it that Jesus chose Peter to be his Apostle, when Peter was married?

Simply because there is nothing wrong with being married, and being a priest. This is why there are some priests in the Latin rite that are married, and priests, and why priests in the Eastern Catholic church can normally be ordained if they are already married. It is a useful discipline that is encouraged by Jesus and Paul, but it is not a moral law.

A discipline is a practice, it is not absolute, and can be changed.

Nevertheless, the west derives its tradition of a celibate clergy from Jesus’ injunction about “they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” (Matt 19:12) As well as Paul’s position in Corinthians that, “it is well for them to remain single as I am.” (7:8), and “does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38).

The highest example of holiness is to not marry and to remain celibate, as Jesus’ words indicate. Jesus himself remained unmarried and celibate for his ministry, as did Paul and John. It is not for everyone, of course, as Jesus also notes.

Once again, it is a practice, or a discipline. It is not absolute and could theoretically be changed. However, it is also a position well grounded in the example of Christ and in Scripture.

 

[SemperJase]

montanaman:

He was condescending, sure, but not quite ban-worthy.

My view is to let people with list like this talk. After all, that’s how I became a catholic, by observing how arguments like this don’t hold water. The illogic of such a list discredits itself.

I like this from the site he quoted:

Doctrine:
3. We are truly a non-denominational church that has no written standard of doctrinal authority other than the Bible.

How we are different:
1.We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible.

Later they contradict themselves

4.We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church.
6. We emphasize that going back to the Bible does not mean the establishing of another denomination, but rather a return and restoration to the original church of the Bible.

Can I point out, the church of original New Testament church was not “a church of the Bible” (sola scriputra) because there was no Bible during the time of the New Testament.