You're putting down Christ if you attack the CC!

[Eden]

Ric:

And I’n not going to for two reasons…

1. Last time I posted the truth in another forum on these boards the mods suspended me (truth hurts), so I stick to this forum (“Non-Roman Catholic Religions”).
2. History is a true witness to it’s self (all sources that are not "Roman Catholic).

1. If you can’t defend your position without being disrespectful which would be the reason for suspension, it would seem to me that you have no defense.
2. “All sources that are not Roman Catholic” is a euphemism for “all sources that are Protestant”.
3. Your silence on the other thread is an answer unto itself.
4. If you only post on the non-Catholic religions boards, dennisknapp started a thread for you too: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=62866

 

[Church_Militant]

Ric:

And I’n not going to for two reasons…

1. Last time I posted the truth in another forum on these boards the mods suspended me (truth hurts), so I stick to this forum (“Non-Roman Catholic Religions”).
2. History is a true witness to it’s self (all sources that are not "Roman Catholic).

1. Your problem is your attitude and the fact that what you espouse is your perceived version of the truth.

“Truth hurts” always sounds good from n-Cs, but the hard fact is that guys like me have checked out all the bunk that guys like you allege and found it to be a load of just that. A load of unsubstantiated allegations with no real unbiased historical evidence. Name your sources Ric. I’ll wager that when we look ‘em over we’ll find that they are nothing more than some anti-Catholics’ rhetoric quoted from another a-C source. (For example: “Rev so & so says thus and so” and then when you look it up you find that he’s quoting Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” which is nothing but misinformation and rhetoric.)

“Truth hurts” alright Ric. Especially when you come in here and make statements like you have on this thread that can easily be shown from history are simply untrue.So the only truth that really hurts, is the truth that shows that you have either been honestly misinformed or have chosen to knowingly propound outright misinformation.

1. "History is a true witness to it’s self (all sources that are not “Roman Catholic).” I can’t believe you said that, but here’s my response. There are two sides to every story and to buy into one just because the source agrees with your postion is not honest scholarship. Again: Name your sources. I was non-Catholic for over 34 years and so I know both sides of all these discussions and I’ve read about a ton of that weary a-C rhetoric (and even believed some of it for a time), but when I checked it out against “the other side of the story”, the teachings just fell to pieces. Just like the misbegotten allegation you have made here and on the other thread.

BTW, remember that discussion of moderators actions on the open forums is also a violation of the rules that you agreed to when you joined us here, so, having been previously been suspended I suggest that you not go for a stroll on those eggs if you intend to hang around here and preach to us. The mods here (as well as most of the members) are pretty tolerant of folks with divergent opinions, so long as they are respectful and charitable in their discussions. Beyond that you do not want to go.
Pax tecum,

 

[Psalm45_9]

1. Last time I posted the truth in another forum on these boards the mods suspended me

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

“Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)

 

[Little_Mary]

Church Militant:

1. Your problem is your attitude and the fact that what you espouse is your perceived version of the truth.

“Truth hurts” always sounds good from n-Cs, but the hard fact is that guys like me have checked out all the bunk that guys like you allege and found it to be a load of just that. A load of unsubstantiated allegations with no real unbiased historical evidence. Name your sources Ric. I’ll wager that when we look ‘em over we’ll find that they are nothing more than some anti-Catholics’ rhetoric quoted from another a-C source. (For example: “Rev so & so says thus and so” and then when you look it up you find that he’s quoting Lorraine Boettner’s “Roman Catholicism” which is nothing but misinformation and rhetoric.)

“Truth hurts” alright Ric. Especially when you come in here and make statements like you have on this thread that can easily be shown from history are simply untrue.So the only truth that really hurts, is the truth that shows that you have either been honestly misinformed or have chosen to knowingly propound outright misinformation.

1. "History is a true witness to it’s self (all sources that are not “Roman Catholic).” I can’t believe you said that, but here’s my response. There are two sides to every story and to buy into one just because the source agrees with your postion is not honest scholarship. Again: Name your sources. I was non-Catholic for over 34 years and so I know both sides of all these discussions and I’ve read about a ton of that weary a-C rhetoric (and even believed some of it for a time), but when I checked it out against “the other side of the story”, the teachings just fell to pieces. Just like the misbegotten allegation you have made here and on the other thread.

BTW, remember that discussion of moderators actions on the open forums is also a violation of the rules that you agreed to when you joined us here, so, having been previously been suspended I suggest that you not go for a stroll on those eggs if you intend to hang around here and preach to us. The mods here (as well as most of the members) are pretty tolerant of folks with divergent opinions, so long as they are respectful and charitable in their discussions. Beyond that you do not want to go.
Pax tecum,

I agree, Ric, we do not want you suspended, we want you to hang around here because the longer you do, the easier it will be for you when you wake up and realize it’s time to come home.

To CM: :bowdown:

 

[Church_Militant]

Little Mary:

I agree, Ric, we do not want you suspended, we want you to hang around here because the longer you do, the easier it will be for you when you wake up and realize it’s time to come home.

To CM: :bowdown:

To Litttle Mary

 

[Jguerra]

cheddarsox:

That is cult thinking. When the church says that it is the truth and that anything else is an attack, not merely on you, but on Christ himself. CULT thinking. When the church says anything that it hasn’t already told you is true is the work of the devil. CULT thinking. When anytime you question, challenge, or speak out that the teachings don’t match your experience, and you are told you are the enemy and under the ruse of the devil. That is simply classic cult mind control.cheddar

If I follow what Fr. Angelus said carefully, he meant exactly what he said: if you trash the Church you trash Jesus Christ Himself, and, here we go, bring out the Bible. Col. 1:18 he is the head of the body, the church; Eph 5:30 we are members of his body. When Saul persecuted the Christians and on his was to Damascus the Lord gave him a mighty ‘smackdown,’ if you will, and said, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? (Acts 9:4)

Saul, a devout Jew and Pharisee, was persecuting the Christians–the followers of the new way, the early Church and Jesus up and says *why are you persecuting me?. . .I am Jesus who you are persecuting.

Others on this thread or forum will no doubt quote other scriptures.

Mind control? Hardly!*

 

[Paris_Blues]

mark a:

Hello-

Could it be that the priest was in a defensive posture?

I have not seen this EWTN show and would be very upset if your interpretation of the priest’s message is correct.

Catholics are quite used to seeing this type of superiority attitude hurled from the other side of the fence.

Nothing would be more disappointing than to have a priest stoop to this same offensive behavior we are often subjected to.

There may be some priests out there with a wild hair, but I’ve never seen one on EWTN.

Even the more “Protestant style” Catholic apologists don’t cross the line of disrespecting others.

Look here, the preist said something like that! I even have a recording of it because sometimes I miss Daily Mass due to me going to work early and will watch it later. I still have it on my video!

It’s called Daily Mass and it’s on EVERY SINGLE day on EWTN! Why don’t you start watching it? Maybe you could learn some things!
mark a:

I have not seen this EWTN show and would be very upset if your interpretation of the priest’s message is correct.

Well, that’s what you get for not watching it! Just kidding. Anyway, I’m telling the truth!! You don’t believe me, go write to EWTN and tell them. I’ll guarantee you that they’ll say that’s true about attack on Church, etc.

 

[FdeS2]

Does anybody else read a lot of the Church Fathers? I mean, that’s history. Recognized historical fact, actually. Look in encyclopedias and see the unbroken line of Popes from Peter to the present day (except for Benedict XVI, because he’s new). Many a protestant or other non-Catholic has converted after reading these writings. Those who ignore these writings are choosing to be ignorant. I encourage EVERYONE to read the writings of the Church Fathers (A.K.A. the early Christians).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Atreyu:

I think people need to understand something here. Be very careful what you mean by “criticism”, because it seems to me that people are arguing over words, which of course is a bad thing to do. Now if people criticise the church, then that is all well and good, and should be encouraged so as to find any faults with the church, so that the church is always being improved. Incidentally, I think this is how Luther started out, with his theses. His criticism was indeed warranted at the time (tho I’m no history buff; this is just how it seems to me). HOWEVER, saying that the Pope is the anti-christ, and other similar verbal abuse against the church is a different thing. Without knowing the context of the priest’s monologue, I have a feeling that this is probably what he was on about. Does that make sense?

It makes very good sense - though ISTM that there is no contradiction between a Catholic’s loving the Church in which he or she is a member of Christ, and, saying that the CC does sometimes behave in a profoundly unChristian, and anti-Christian, way. The CC is not the AC par excellence - she can be anti-Christian in ways that fall short of her being the AC.​

It goes without saying - or it should - that the same can be said of those of us of in the CC: if Peter himself could be the mouthpiece of satan, then certainly oneself can.

A lot is said about Peter and the keys - quite properly, for that is part of the Gospel record; and so is his seeking to divert Jesus from the road to the Cross, and the terrible rebuke it earned him: but we hear far less about that. And that, is to distort the Gospel. This is no insult to St.Peter, & it is not anti-Catholic: for it is what Our Lord Himself said to him; and therefore, to us. We too can do the work of satan, with the best of intentions. It is because they realise this is possible to Christians that some Protestants don’t become Catholics, I think: the Church has no protection against what the sinful Christians in her can do. For perfect holiness one must look, not to the Church, but to Christ. All the Church’s holiness comes from her union with Christ. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

.
Church Militant:

Bunk. What did the Holy Spirit pen with His own “hand”?

Authorship is a concept which can be applied by analogy to man, but properly to God. Applied to books and texts, it is not confined to the moving of the writing-instrument alone - see here: “This supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, is contained both in unwritten Tradition, and in written Books, which are therefore called sacred and canonical because, "being written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author and as such have been delivered to the Church.”​

Ric is being more Catholic than some Catholics on this point. ##

This is a completely unBiblical assertion, since the Bible itself says, " For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke

, inspired by the Holy Ghost. " (2nd Peter 1:21 Emphasis mine) In fact it says they “spoke”, not wrote, and the key word is “inspired”. That means that those who wrote wrote by inspiration and so God directly wrote NOTHING.

You can allege the late arrival of the Catholic Church, but unbiased history does not support you when within 10 years of the death of the last apostle, St. John. His close friend, disciple and bishop of Antioch, Ignatius wrote. "Let that be deemed a proper(18) Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

That has no relevance to the fact that by the time of Our Lord, most of the OT books we use were in practice accepted as Scripture - except among the Sadduccees and Samaritans. We could always ignore what St. Paul say on the matter, and the many quotations of the Bible by Jesus: but if we ignore the quotations made by Him, it is illogical to argue, as Catholics do, that He endorsed the deuterocanonical books.​

The CC did not create the inspiration of the Hebrew books - it recognised them as already inspired. It can only recognise Scripture; it can never create it by its own act as a body of Christians: for God - not the Church - is the Primary, Real, Author of Scripture. Not man, not even Christian man. ##

Looks like the followers of the apostles actually called the church by the name Catholic! Oh NO! And you can tell from the way he says it that he’s using it as the name, not a term that describes the church.

It may have been a description, and not yet a proper name, at this time​

So you can sit there and believe the stuff that somebody with an agenda told you or you can beileve the historic facts that are right under your nose and all the rest of the world.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ComradeAndrei:

You won’t even back up your claims with anything resembling an arguement. You should really lay off the all the meaningless little cute quips or put up a rational arguement.

Also, concerning critizing the Church, I believe there are far too many cafeteria Catholic pew-warmer types out there that seem to think that they are more Catholic than the Church

Why can they not be ? What really matters is whether they are more Christian ​

but know practically nothing about theology or doctrine

Like the Apostles, when they were hauled up before the Sanhedrin, which was full of learned and pious men: yet the Apostles had to “obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5.29).​

and renegade theologians that whine and cry that the Church needs to liberalize or modernize. These types really need to get into line. That kind of “criticism” the Church can do without.

IOW - “we don’t mind criticism, as long as you don’t say anything we find objectionable” ? ​

Is it the persons, or their supposed lack of knowledge, or the things they say, that is objectionable ?

If Amos could be prophetically denounce the evils in the religion of his day, then God forbid there should be a lack of Catholic or Christian prophets to denounce and rebuke the infidelities and betrayals and sins & other unrighteousness of the Churches today: for a lack of such God-sent criticism could be a hint that our sins were exhausting the patience of God. If God was righteous in 740 BC - then He is righteous now, and has thereforenot acquired any love for our sins.

Amos was sneered at because he was not a professional prophet - he was a herdsman. But God uses nobodies, people we may look down our noses at, to do His Will. We Christians have to stop being such snobs ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

ComradeAndrei:

You won’t even back up your claims with anything resembling an arguement. You should really lay off the all the meaningless little cute quips or put up a rational arguement.

Also, concerning critizing the Church, I believe there are far too many cafeteria Catholic pew-warmer types out there that seem to think that they are more Catholic than the Church

Why can they not be ? What really matters is whether they are more Christian ​

but know practically nothing about theology or doctrine

Like the Apostles, when they were hauled up before the Sanhedrin, which was full of learned and pious men: yet the Apostles had to “obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5.29).​

and renegade theologians that whine and cry that the Church needs to liberalize or modernize. These types really need to get into line. That kind of “criticism” the Church can do without.

IOW - “we don’t mind criticism, as long as you don’t say anything we find objectionable” ? ​

Is it the persons, or their supposed lack of knowledge, or the things they say, that is objectionable ?

If Amos could prophetically denounce the evils in the religion of his day, then God forbid there should be a lack of Catholic or Christian prophets to denounce and rebuke the infidelities and betrayals and sins & other unrighteousness of the Churches today: for a lack of such God-sent criticism could be a hint that our sins were exhausting the patience of God. If God was righteous in 740 BC - then He is righteous now, and has thereforenot acquired any love for our sins.

Amos was sneered at because he was not a professional prophet - he was a herdsman. But God uses nobodies, people we may look down our noses at, to do His Will. We Christians have to stop being such snobs ##

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Why can they not be ? What really matters is whether they are more Christian

If they are lax or heretical and go against the teaching of the Church-then they are NOT authoritative enough to dare preach against the Church. If they are not in line with Rome, they are definately NOT more Christian than the Church.

Like the Apostles, when they were hauled up before the Sanhedrin, which was full of learned and pious men: yet the Apostles had to “obey God, rather than men” (Acts 5.29).

Apples and oranges-the Apostles were the first Bishops. They were the Church at the time.

IOW - “we don’t mind criticism, as long as you don’t say anything we find objectionable” ?

It is not a matter of “we find objectionable” it is a matter that Christ finds it objectionable-to go against what He has set up.

Is it the persons, or their supposed lack of knowledge, or the things they say, that is objectionable ?

If Amos could prophetically denounce the evils in the religion of his day, then God forbid there should be a lack of Catholic or Christian prophets to denounce and rebuke the infidelities and betrayals and sins & other unrighteousness of the Churches today: for a lack of such God-sent criticism could be a hint that our sins were exhausting the patience of God. If God was righteous in 740 BC - then He is righteous now, and has thereforenot acquired any love for our sins.

Amos was sneered at because he was not a professional prophet - he was a herdsman. But God uses nobodies, people we may look down our noses at, to do His Will. We Christians have to stop being such snobs ##

Whoa, too far. The Church reforms itself from the inside, not from outside. For instance, there have been a number of great saints in the past that have repromanded bishops or popes-but they did so within the confines of the Dotrine of the Church.

For instance, when the Popes went to Avignon, St. Catherine of Sienna implored Pope Gregory IX to come back to Rome, reform the clergy, reunite Christendom against the infidels and to bring peace back to the Italian peninsula. She was a “nobody”, a woman at a time when men ruled supreme and she helped to reform the Church FROM WITHIN, not as a heretic from the outside. She didn’t break away from the Church, she didn’t demand more “freedom” for women or laity in Church matters that they don’t belong. She rebuked Peter, like Paul did. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they do it in a spirit of humility and charity within the Church that Jesus Christ set up.

 

[FdeS2]

## It makes very good sense - though ISTM that there is no contradiction between a Catholic’s loving the Church in which he or she is a member of Christ, and, saying that the CC does sometimes behave in a profoundly unChristian, and anti-Christian, way. The CC is not the AC par excellence - she can be anti-Christian in ways that fall short of her being the AC. ##

Please, please stop making the assertion that the Catholic Church can be un-Christian and/or anti-Christian. Generalizations are pretty much never true. It is accurate to say that some members can be so, but certainly not the Catholic Church. Look at all of the dialogues that the Catholic Church has started between different faiths. We are attempting to improve relations and reach understandings with other faiths.

On a different note, people who want to modernize or liberalize the Church have no business saying so. These people are often in favor of contraception, abortion, and many other morally reprehensible things. God’s Church on earth and in the saints in heaven above do not and will not support such abominable things as these.

P.S. Good post, ComradeAndrei.