Catholic Q&A Continues

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
381

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Turning the crowd loose with a Holy book can be dangerous…See Islam and their current struggles with violence.

In other words I am responding to attacks, not preaching that everybody should have the same beliefs.[/quote]
You mean like if a certain group thinks they can require all to submit to their beliefs or be stretched on the rack until they recant and embrace mother church? If I don’t think Mary was a perpetual virgin, can I have freedom of worship? I can now, thank God for courageous Christians who were willing to suffer for the freedom to maintain their own opinion.[/quote]

What are you talking about?

382

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Baptism. [/quote]
What verse of Scripture please do you base your answer on?[/quote]

What does that post say?

383

[quote]Leanna wrote:
The point I’m mostly disagreeing with is the presumption that there is only ONE TRUE CHURCH (meaning one true religious denomination).[/quote]

Because Christ only has one body, and since the Church is his body, then there is only one.

And there is no one true religious denomination. Denomination is in reference to a particular church. The one true Church is made up of particular churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome and all the Bishops in union with him.

384

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The kiss of death in a debate.
[/quote]

From the guy that makes inflammatory remarks and treats people like subordinates/slaves.

385

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Like I said, heavy “liberation” influence. Can’t do it now though Chris but I will attempt some examples when I can. Thanks btw, sincerely. You saved me some work.[/quote]Yeah, the most anti-liberation theologian to ever grace the papal house is now preaching liberation theology.

Liberation theology - Wikipedia [/quote]That IS very inconsistent isn’t it?[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:The kiss of death in a debate.
[/quote]From the guy that makes inflammatory remarks and treats people like subordinates/slaves[/quote]Examples of treatment as subordinate/slaves please Christopher? My remarks CAN be inflammatory so I say fair enough to that one. My pastor always says that emotions make excellent servants, but disastrous masters. Can we have levelheaded discussion Chris? I just now got a PM from somebody that included this :[quote]<<< You speak so highly of Van Til and I want to read up on him to get an idea of what makes you tic since from what I see, you seem like one of the more honest, respectful, and consistent with thought and word in their convictions on these forums and I’d like to think in the real too. >>>[/quote]You two seem to have differing perspectives. They can either identify themselves or not. I won’t. You are angry at my criticism of your church which is much more credible now that the Lord has dealt with my previous truly hurtful, arrogant and REALLY inflammatory attitude. I don’t care WHAT you do or say Christopher. I will remain loyal to you until God releases which may be never.

386

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
That IS very inconsistent isn’t it?
[/quote]

No, it’s called a straw-man since he’s not preaching liberation theology as you accuse.

387

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Examples of treatment as subordinate/slaves please Christopher?
[/quote]

Saying that you’re going to spank a grown man? I’ve don’t have to have an imagination to understand why Sloth put you on ignore.

388

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Examples of treatment as subordinate/slaves please Christopher?
[/quote] Saying that you’re going to spank a grown man? I’ve don’t have to have an imagination to understand why Sloth put you on ignore.[/quote]It’s s figure of speech Chris(one that I VERY rarely use) and no you don’t have to imagine. I’ve told you why and it’s right there in public view. I have a job I have to go to. I will do my utmost to get to all the rest of your communications later. I will always do that Chris.

389

Just letting you guys know that Im reading everything and I REALLY want to get in on this conversation but cant because of exams. I fear that if I start asking questions or make some arguments then I will feel obligated to really keep up with everything however at this time I cannot. But if this thread (or a Catholic Q & A 3) exists by the time Im done exams then I will participate.

I have several things that would like to address.

390

Little brother Forbes peeks in a for minute. Always good to see you man.

391

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Since the Roman Church is not the same as the universal church[/quote]

I don’t get this, can you explain this to me? Well mainly why you call her the Roman Church.[/quote]
Well, very briefly. But you should know this because it’s standard Protestant understanding.[/quote]

I was a Protestant for 6 years. I never held this and neither did even the most rabid anti-Catholic friends that I kept. Mostly because they actually knew history. Further this is an ad Populum diversion.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What does that post say?[/quote]
You have answered- Baptism is how you get into the body of Christ, which is the church.

Above is my original question. If we are to discuss this, it will have to be from the common ground of Scripture, so you need to tell me what verse you are basing your answer on.

392

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Turning the crowd loose with a Holy book can be dangerous…See Islam and their current struggles with violence.

In other words I am responding to attacks, not preaching that everybody should have the same beliefs.[/quote]
You mean like if a certain group thinks they can require all to submit to their beliefs or be stretched on the rack until they recant and embrace mother church? If I don’t think Mary was a perpetual virgin, can I have freedom of worship? I can now, thank God for courageous Christians who were willing to suffer for the freedom to maintain their own opinion.[/quote]

What are you talking about?[/quote]

The Inquisition against “heretics” is just such an example of a group exhibiting intolerance, spurred on by their holy book, because they have not got the “the same thing out of scripture”. This was Pat’s answer to Leonna. I think Pat can understand my meaning. It is a fact he doesn’t want to acknowledge.

393

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you think the convicted priests should be defrocked Pat? Were they?[/quote]

Yes, they were defrocked. But, guess what Priests have canonical rights, like you and I have civil rights. Their is a process in which is to be established to defrock a priest. Though the Modus op. is now to suspend a priest indefinitely from public ministry from a single accusation. Which, is dangerous in itself.

Note the Catholic Authority had to restate existing policy that reminded the Bishops to report incidents to the officials.[/quote]
In my view this is a point against the bishops.[/quote]

Well I made several, want to be specific?[/quote]

Sorry, I mean the last one you listed:

Note the Catholic Authority had to restate existing policy that reminded the Bishops to report

394

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You have answered- Baptism is how you get into the body of Christ, which is the church.

Above is my original question. If we are to discuss this, it will have to be from the common ground of Scripture, so you need to tell me what verse you are basing your answer on.

[/quote]

Well, as much as my entire being at this moment wants to ask you why it has to be in the Bible, I’ll give some slack mostly because it’s past vespers and I have imbibed (not sure what that means, but someone used it today so I decided to use it) in some of my good friend’s new wine and mead – he just launched his 2012, also first, vintage. :slight_smile: The fact that someone can grow grapes in Tucson still boggles my mind. The honey, I totally get.

There is certain passages that I can pick off the top of my head pertaining to this subject.

1 Peter 3:21, says that it saves you, which you can only be saved if you’re in the body of Christ. The verse also alludes to the fact that baptism is the new circumcision, circumcision was how you were brought into the old covenant.

Then there is the blunt version Jesus gives us, John 3:3,5.

395

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Maybe you should take a hike until you are interest in fair honest dialog. For a religious person, you have been anything but fair and honest, here. [/quote]
I thought you said we were going according to the rules on the street. On the street only substance counts Pat, and no whining. You make a post, then I make a post. We take turns; it’s fair.

Did I lie? I missed that. Did you point it out to me? I mean with detailed facts? Not just your interpretation remember, and I explained what that means. If you disagree, go back to that post and show me how I was wrong.[/quote]

You haven’t dropped any facts proving your side, so your demand for facts on the part of Pat is laughable at best. [/quote]
This is getting a little tiring. This thread has gone on along time, and we have talked about a lot of stuff, some with more detail, some with less. Now Pat wants to say I’ve been dishonest. Let him go back and tell me what he is referring to. Didn’t I go back and get into more facts from the John Jay report? I can pull up a post I responded to and Pat, or “your side”, or whatever didn’t answer with facts. I would like to go back and get into it, but it’s Pat’s turn to deal with this first. It’s his accusation, let him answer.

396

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Maybe you should take a hike until you are interest in fair honest dialog. For a religious person, you have been anything but fair and honest, here. [/quote]
I thought you said we were going according to the rules on the street. On the street only substance counts Pat, and no whining. You make a post, then I make a post. We take turns; it’s fair.

Did I lie? I missed that. Did you point it out to me? I mean with detailed facts? Not just your interpretation remember, and I explained what that means. If you disagree, go back to that post and show me how I was wrong.[/quote]

What the hell are you talking about? You said you were becoming disinterested because I was calling you out on the fact that you simply point to the sins of people with in the church as an invalidation of the the church. I merely point out that sin is everywhere, and that you are a part of the same sinful nature as everybody else, yet, you, in extremely poor judgement, continue to harp on the sins the few in condemnation of the many.

You said you wanted to leave, I merely concur in that you are unable of decent conversation. Now, if you really want to go street, lets just call each other names and insult each others mama’s, then we can threaten each other physically!

Or you can knock off your rediculous bullshit and attempt having an intelligent conversation about scripture, faith, doctrine, history and what not.

I also see you come from the school of argument where you simply ignore to meat of a subject, and try to head people off at the pass on the basis of minutia.

So strait up, you want to discuss faith and religion, or just call Catholics a bunch of names and pat yourself on the back for your hubris.

Do you really want to compare the similarities and differences between molestation cases of .025% Catholic clergy with the 5 - 10% of protestant clergy? Perhaps we should focus more intently of the molestation cases of the protestant clergy? After all these guys aren’t held to celibacy, so why are they molesting boys when they get satisfaction at home?

I think we should spend more time examining the sins of the protestant clergy and lay. Maybe we should just talk about Eddie Long. He’s clearly sola scripura, why is he buttering up young boys?

Is that what you like? Personally, I think we could spend much better time talking about faith, and religion. After all, I cannot control the actions of others any better than you do.

397

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Further, I challenge you to find me a shred of Catholic doctrine that supports the abuse of a minor? Does your church have such doctrines? Do you think protestants haven’t sexually abused minors? What do you have to say for them. Is it ok, because they are protestant? Is this something you are going to pretend like it doesn’t exist? Oh it does, and in far greater numbers than you will admit. Why doesn’t it make big news? Is it so common that it isn’t news anymore?
[/quote]
Their would be no point in making such a challenge, as I never suggested such a crime would be acceptable according to official RC doctrine. And, I also stated I know the same thing happens in other denominations. Why isn’t it reported as much? Well, I would say it’s perceived as more serious when a single institution has so many cases, regardless of the overall size of the institution, and even if the ratio of occurrence is the same with smaller groups. (For the sake of accuracy, I would like to point out that those 6000+ accusations were labelled as “substantiated” in the report. Of course, what case does or doesn’t get taken to court, doesn’t necessarily reflect the reliability of what corroborates the accusation.)
[/quote]
So you yeild to the media to be judge and jury? It could be that maybe the media perceives your little sects so insignificant that molestation really doesn’t much matter any more than it does in the general public. If you do a little research, the protestant molestation cases are as or even more prominent that the catholic ones. The problem is that comparatively, similar numbers yield much higher percentages. So what is it with you protestants? I submit to you that for every bit that the actions of the few somehow ‘invalidate’ the faith, then the same with you. For every misgivings of your clergy, the molesters, the wife and child abusers, the bathroom drunks, etc. your ‘religion’ becomes less and less valid as well. Seems fair to me!

This group of dispicables, do not formulate anything. They were the worker bees. These guys are just priests, they don’t make rules, submit doctrine, or do anything significant with respect to the doctrines of magisterium. They are bad, sick bastards who dare to take the holy orders of Christ’s church and do harm and damage to people and the institution.
These guys don’t have anything to do with the greater church except to cause her harm.

[quote]
And what am I going to do about the protestant abusers? Why do I need to do anything? I’m an independent baptist. My church is not part of any association and has no hierarchy above the local church pastor. If he were be caught committing any type of related act, he would be immediately removed. He probably would resign himself.[/quote]

Well, neither are any of my local priests or bishops doing anything of the like. My church is in no way apart of what happened with the sick few. And if any of our local clergy were even remotely guilty of any such thing, I’d help tie the noose, but they are not.

So neither yours, nor my local churches are involved with this crap and never has been. So now you don’t make any sense.
How does the sins of people I never met, who are removed from me in every way as anybody else who is not affiliated with me in anyway a reflection of my relationship with Christ, my means through my faith to feed that relationship?
So either the sins of people who are affiliated with our perspective faiths diminish that faith, or they don’t. You can’t have it where sinful people hurt only my religion but they do not hurt yours, period.
If you want to pick on the sins of Catholics as a reflection of the faith itself, then the sins of protestants are a reflection of your faith too. That’s the game you want to play.

398

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Sorry, I mean the last one you listed:

Note the Catholic Authority had to restate existing policy that reminded the Bishops to report [/quote]

First things first, I have no doubt that there are some bishops and priests who are at fault, after all they aren’t made up of some special matter that makes them super Christians – the bar is higher for them, but the bottom is still the bottom. They should be punished, you’ll find sound bites from me all over these boards and in real life where I recommend hanging from tall oak trees for those who hurt children. Nevertheless, which particular bishops and priests are responsible I can’t say. I don’t like to commit the sin of rash judgement.

Second, Bishops are the people that I am referring to as the authority. Though, they may have had to remind their own episcopal brethren of the policy. There have been pastoral policy announced in particular diocese, but not what I am referring to at this moment. What I am talking about is one of the most hated parts of the Catholic Church (besides the Eucharist)…rules, yes the prototype of Western law…Canon Law.

B16 recently stated in a letter to seminarians that the recent (past half century or so) ignoring of Canon Law and the terribly un-Catholic understanding of love is a big reason for the sexual scandal.

So, points for Bishops (especially the Bishop of Rome who has been pushing this since he was the prefect of the CDF) for demanding that people enforce Canon Law. Further, the particular dioceses, the policies were directed to those that dealt directly with the priests.

Anyway, bad stuff.

399

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Turning the crowd loose with a Holy book can be dangerous…See Islam and their current struggles with violence.

In other words I am responding to attacks, not preaching that everybody should have the same beliefs.[/quote]
You mean like if a certain group thinks they can require all to submit to their beliefs or be stretched on the rack until they recant and embrace mother church? If I don’t think Mary was a perpetual virgin, can I have freedom of worship? I can now, thank God for courageous Christians who were willing to suffer for the freedom to maintain their own opinion.[/quote]

Oh you mean like John Calvin, who was complicit in the murder of those who did not submit to the heresy of TULIP? First, it is significant, because he created a religion, out of thin ass air, because that garbage sure ain’t in the bible. While the people who did this in the name of the Church, their motivation was largely political, not religious. For instance, the Inquisition of which you speak, was the work of King Ferdinand and Queen Isabel of Spain. Pope Sixtus, was horrified, but powerless to stop the inquisition in Spain.
The word ‘inquisition’ means ‘to suppress heresy’, the monarchy in Spin. The purpose of the inquisition was to eliminate to Moorish presence in spain. Ferdinand and Isabel thought the only way to remove rebelliousness threat from the soil of spain was to make people convert or leave.
Since your not really good at history, I shall fill you in. The Spanish had been fighting with the Moors for quite a long time. They had finally kicked the last of them off during their reign. The thought process was since the conflict was religious in nature, the solution to preventing further conflicts on Spanish soil was to take religion out of the equation. The solution? Make every one Catholic or die. If everybody is Catholic, there is no need for religious war. Simple right?
You’ve been fighting with the muslims for hundreds of years, you don’t want anybody on your land to fight you because of religion, so you remove that variable. I don’t see this sinking in at any level, but you have to look at the facts to make sense of history.
It’s easy to get sucked into propaganda, especially if that propaganda makes you look good, but if you are interested in truth then seek it. If you are into your ego, look in the mirror, flex and kiss it repeatedly.

400

The TULIP outline didn’t exist til long after Calvin was dead and Calvin won’t work on Mr. Chen.