Catholic Q & A

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1101

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

The last time I attended Mass was more than 30 years ago. At that time, the laity did not get to drink.
[/quote]
That was lack of resources, not permission. When you gotta serve 2000, wine gets kind of expensive.

You don’t know your history bub. The bible doesn’t have all those documents. Some of the historical stuff never made it into the bible cannon. See ‘Acts of Peter and Paul’.

Don’t try to rewrite history to make it what you want… Keep in mind whose glory your trying to seek. Who cares if Peter is the first pope? You don’t answer to any pope, even Peter so it really should not have any impact on you at all. Trying to make Catholics a boogie man is not going to make you one molecule closer to God.

1102

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I’ll restate it plainly for those who say I am wrong:

You say that I am to follow Luther’s doctrine Sola Scriptura, so how do I know which books belong in the Bible?[/quote]

Yeah, Luther’s prescription was based on the fact that he thought the bible, once he edited it to fit his desires, was easy and clear. It was so easy and clear that 36,000 protestant denominations, all with their own slightly tweaked understanding of scripture popped up. If Luther were right, then there would have been one, not 36,000. It worked so well that even our Southern Baptist brethren sawi the need to establish some authority over the masses in the SBC.

The biggest problem I have with what Luther did was this scripture editing. To remove Tobit or Judith or Maccabees even, wasn’t that bad but why Sirach, why Wisdom, why the Epistle of St. James? Oh, because it disagreed with his, man made prescription for salvation by faith alone. I consider it a warning. If you have to edit the scripture to make it fit man, they problem isn’t the scripture, it’s the man.

1103

Friar Pat of Atlanta is on the scene Mr. Chen. One of the Franciscan faithful(probably a Mercedarian). Hope ya have yer helmet n cup on. =]

1104

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
If you understand God better than a 2,000 year old tradition, you must be pretty smart.
[/quote]

My sentiments.[/quote]

Disappointing to see you concur with this guy Chris.[/quote]

Why is it disappointing?[/quote]

Well, he’s a troll, now you know… He started off whacked and it went downhill from there. Knowing anything about Catholic doctrine cannot save him from himself. [/quote]

I saw his Jesus isn’t Jewish thread. I guess a blind squirrel can get a nut every once and awhile.

1105

I guess there’s no way for me to argue with this Sloth:

e. The result in history: apostolic succession

Timothy, as well as Titus and other early evangelist-bishops, carried out this ministry of ordaining priests, and the result is what we have today in the Catholic Church: a sacramental priesthood with a chain of ordinations running straight back to the first century, whose links can be clearly documented from Church history.

You’d better obey the priest then, as apparently your eternal salvation depends on it.

1106

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Yes, that is well and good, but where are we supposed to look for truth? What is the bulwark and pillar of truth???

How do I know which books are supposed to be in the Bible? I AM SO CONFUSED!

I’ll restate it plainly for those who say I am wrong:

You say that I am to follow Luther’s doctrine Sola Scriptura, so how do I know which books belong in the Bible?
[/quote]

Is that sarcasm Chris? We’re not trying to “prove” you wrong. You’ve been asking a question, I’ve been trying to answer it. Non-sequitors, hardly, I’m trying to give you some different angles, as you don’t seem to be following me. Do you want me to answer you like I would a 12 yr old? If you’re confused, I already gave you a prescription for that.

If you don’t get it now, bookmark this thread and come back to it in a few years.

Like I said, it’s been enjoyable, but I’ve got a bunch of work I have to get to.

1107

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
I guess there’s no way for me to argue with this Sloth:

e. The result in history: apostolic succession

Timothy, as well as Titus and other early evangelist-bishops, carried out this ministry of ordaining priests, and the result is what we have today in the Catholic Church: a sacramental priesthood with a chain of ordinations running straight back to the first century, whose links can be clearly documented from Church history.

You’d better obey the priest then, as apparently your eternal salvation depends on it.[/quote]

Yeeeeeah buddy!

1108

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is well and good, but where are we supposed to look for truth? What is the bulwark and pillar of truth??? >>>[/quote]You tried this one on me before Christopher. Don’t you remember?

1109

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Friar Pat of Atlanta is on the scene Mr. Chen. One of the Franciscan faithful(probably a Mercedarian). Hope ya have yer helmet n cup on. =][/quote]

Why not answer his claim, Tirib? I sure would like to know how you guys reconcile that rather heady question.

1110

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you want me to answer you like I would a 12 yr old? If you’re confused, I already gave you a prescription for that.
[/quote]

I’m slow. Would you mind answering it for me like you would a 12 year old?

So far I’ve seen nothing but a string of deflections and half-responses.

1111

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Is that sarcasm Chris?[/quote]

No.

Then why did multiple times did you attack me questioning my intelligence?

All I have seen is that you have attacked the Catholic Church.

Yes, please make your answers clear. Clear and courteous have the best chance of conversion.

1112

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
You’d better obey the priest then, as apparently your eternal salvation depends on it.[/quote]

Well, since the Church teaches that there is only one true Priest, then yes we better as that priest said that to love him is to be obedient to his commandments. :slight_smile:

1113

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is well and good, but where are we supposed to look for truth? What is the bulwark and pillar of truth??? >>>[/quote]You tried this one on me before Christopher. Don’t you remember?
[/quote]

I don’t remember trying anything on you. I asked an honest question.

1114

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you want me to answer you like I would a 12 yr old? If you’re confused, I already gave you a prescription for that.
[/quote]

I’m slow. Would you mind answering it for me like you would a 12 year old?

So far I’ve seen nothing but a string of deflections and half-responses. [/quote]
I have written substantial posts to try to answer the question. I don’t need to deflect anything. Your one sentence dismissal of my posts at this point seems almost rude. Do we know each other friend?

But I’ll try ONE MORE TIME. I would ask that you try to follow without any prejudice.

How can you quote the bible against tradition, when it is tradition that brought us the bible? How can we know even which bible without relying on tradition?

The answer is the Scriptures have authority because they are “given by inspiration” not because so and so said, yep that’s one of Paul’s letters. If we feel tradition (of fallible men) has gone beyond what the Scriptures say when plainly read, we have recourse to those Scriptures alone. The men that say- “we believe it means this”, have no more ability or right then we to say it, as they are fallible men as we are. Whatever they might know about the collected traditions, we may also know, and with our God given abilities, accept or reject. We are both in the same position before the BOOK, including to decide which book it is.

If this is not true, then you must listen to EVERYTHING the priest tells you is true. Even though it was not he who brought you the bible, but men that have died long ago.

It’s a good thing I’m self-employed, or I’d be in trouble today with my boss.

1115

Lighten up Chris, I don’t intend to attack your intelligence. You did say you’re not a ROMAN Catholic. As I just asked Cortez, try to read my posts without prejudice.

Really gotta go.

1116

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you want me to answer you like I would a 12 yr old? If you’re confused, I already gave you a prescription for that.
[/quote]

I’m slow. Would you mind answering it for me like you would a 12 year old?

So far I’ve seen nothing but a string of deflections and half-responses. [/quote]
I have written substantial posts to try to answer the question. I don’t need to deflect anything. Your one sentence dismissal of my posts at this point seems almost rude. Do we know each other friend?

But I’ll try ONE MORE TIME. I would ask that you try to follow without any prejudice.

How can you quote the bible against tradition, when it is tradition that brought us the bible? How can we know even which bible without relying on tradition?

The answer is the Scriptures have authority because they are “given by inspiration” not because so and so said, yep that’s one of Paul’s letters. If we feel tradition (of fallible men) has gone beyond what the Scriptures say when plainly read, we have recourse to those Scriptures alone. The men that say- “we believe it means this”, have no more ability or right then we to say it, as they are fallible men as we are. Whatever they might know about the collected traditions, we may also know, and with our God given abilities, accept or reject. We are both in the same position before the BOOK, including to decide which book it is.

If this is not true, then you must listen to EVERYTHING the priest tells you is true. Even though it was not he who brought you the bible, but men that have died long ago.

It’s a good thing I’m self-employed, or I’d be in trouble today with my boss.[/quote]

So, in other words, yours is exactly as good as that of the Catholic Church, whose authority is exactly as good as The Westborough Baptist church, whose authority is exactly as good as Anton LaVey’s.

And all those authorities for 1500 years or so leading up to the schism, they were all, what, lesser authorities?

And I find it rich that I get chastised for rudeness after all of the trash-talking you’ve leveled at the Catholic church in this thread in addition to specific comments directed at her members such as the one obliquely calling Chris’s intelligence into question. Step down from that horse for a moment and see the world as us stupid little Catholics do, won’t you? Careful you don’t get shit on your boots.

1117

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Yes, that is well and good, but where are we supposed to look for truth? What is the bulwark and pillar of truth??? >>>[/quote]You tried this one on me before Christopher. Don’t you remember?
[/quote]

I don’t remember trying anything on you. I asked an honest question. [/quote]I am disappointed Christopher. A year goes by and I’m all but forgotten. That’s ok, I’ll cry on my pilow some more.=] 02-11-2011, 10:36 PM [quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< So, would you say that the Bible is the pillar and bulwark of truth?[/quote]Here we go again. I cannot possibly keep up with you (post wise). No, of course not. The church is. 1st Timothy 3:15 =] However there is no article, hence the ESV translation of A pillar etc. That doesn’t really matter though, either way the ekklesia, the assembly of the faithful (in other words the elect, in other words the invisible church) is indeed the “pillar and buttress” (ESV) of the truth. I would certainly hope so. Who else are the ambassadors of Christ in the Earth?

1118

[quote]Cortes wrote: And I find it rich that I get chastised for rudeness
[/quote]
Hardly chastised you man. I did say it seemed a little rude.

[quote]Cortes wrote: all of the trash-talking you’ve leveled at the Catholic church
[/quote]
Made some historical references I did. Which one was inaccurate?

[quote]Cortes wrote: So, in other words, yours is exactly as good as that of the Catholic Church, whose authority is exactly as good as The Westborough Baptist church, whose authority is exactly as good as Anton LaVey’s.
[/quote]
No, didn’t say that. I said all are in the same position before the BOOK. Although you do have a point, some people are stupider than others when it comes to reading plain English, so we should find a way to factor that in. LaVey doesn’t reverence the bible my friend, a poor example for our discussion.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
And all those authorities for 1500 years or so leading up to the schism, they were all, what, lesser authorities?
[/quote]
Not lesser or greater. They’re all dead. Whatever they learned, we can all read today. Anytime.

But as far as the 1500 years go, I’m with the tradition that Mary was just another sinner like the rest. Her perpetual virginity, bodily ascension, and ability to hear prayers simultaneously of 10,000+ people and function as a Mediatrix was a later tradition. I don’t follow that one.

[quote]Cortes wrote:
obliquely calling Chris’s intelligence into question.
[/quote]
I told Chris I’ve enjoyed our discussion, and I have. I think he’s been a little sloppy about reading my posts, and then repeating the same question as if I’ve written nothing. I bet he can take care of himself though. I don’t think there’s any need for you to suit up.

1119

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Friar Pat of Atlanta is on the scene Mr. Chen. One of the Franciscan faithful(probably a Mercedarian). Hope ya have yer helmet n cup on. =][/quote]

Why not answer his claim, Tirib? I sure would like to know how you guys reconcile that rather heady question. [/quote]This is for the epistemology thread. Coming soon for you my dear friend is the disturbing and utterly inescapable conclusion that you MUST choose either the one true biblical epistemology that you’ve now publicly declared you agree with OR Catholicism. They absolutely CANNOT both be true. God, in keeping His hobby of making foolish the wisdom of the world has taken the mighty mind of Thomas Aquinas out at the ankles in the very writings that Aquinas’s church canonized. It’s coming. I promise you. It’ll keep you up at night.

Honestly? I’m surprised you haven’t gotten there yet. My prayers continue. Squating_bear is on that path, but stopped himself short. Kamui has amazingly seen the raw logical necessity of the framework I hold, in detail, but has developed a pagan explanation so as to escape the God who’s face he’s practically staring into.

My favorite confession again of 1646 Chapter 1, section 4: “IV. The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or Church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”

This will of necessity continue in the epistemology thread. Remember what epistemology is? I am only a man Cortes, but near as I can tell, I prayed, studied and thought through every conceivable aspect and angle and objection to the comprehensively scriptural (and scripture alone) system of thought I have been incessantly here espousing loooong before I knew any of you folks existed. My dialog with you has been precious. I mean that. The finale however is still on the way. All I can do is tell you. The Holy Spirit is responsible for the rest.

1120

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Do you want me to answer you like I would a 12 yr old? If you’re confused, I already gave you a prescription for that.
[/quote]

I’m slow. Would you mind answering it for me like you would a 12 year old?

So far I’ve seen nothing but a string of deflections and half-responses. [/quote]
I have written substantial posts to try to answer the question. I don’t need to deflect anything. Your one sentence dismissal of my posts at this point seems almost rude. Do we know each other friend?

But I’ll try ONE MORE TIME. I would ask that you try to follow without any prejudice.

How can you quote the bible against tradition, when it is tradition that brought us the bible? How can we know even which bible without relying on tradition?

The answer is the Scriptures have authority because they are “given by inspiration” not because so and so said, yep that’s one of Paul’s letters. If we feel tradition (of fallible men) has gone beyond what the Scriptures say when plainly read, we have recourse to those Scriptures alone. The men that say- “we believe it means this”, have no more ability or right then we to say it, as they are fallible men as we are. Whatever they might know about the collected traditions, we may also know, and with our God given abilities, accept or reject. We are both in the same position before the BOOK, including to decide which book it is.

If this is not true, then you must listen to EVERYTHING the priest tells you is true. Even though it was not he who brought you the bible, but men that have died long ago.

It’s a good thing I’m self-employed, or I’d be in trouble today with my boss.[/quote]

So, I understand you these are your two main points?

Fallible men gave us the Bible or we have to interpret and decided which books and are in the Bible. If this is not what you meant, can you explain further?

Either, don’t listen to a priest or listen to everything a priest tells you? Are you using hyperbole when you say everything? Or do you mean in the realm of morals and faith?