Bob said:
"Let me see if I can explain what I mean about the church better. The church is 1 thing - the body of Christ (with Christ as its head). The church attempts to assemble itself here on earth... in multiple "churches". The final assembly of the church won't happen until death / Christ's return."
So the Church is "1 thing" yet is "multiple". Uh yeah, I think I see what you are trying to say. You failed to explain anything though. Again, what you describe is not a visible Church, which Scripture and Tradition say is something the Church MUST be! You just blithely waltz past those considerations however, and insist the Church is invisible, contrary to the Scripture you pretend to follow. Your conception of the Church is a product of the 16th century. Found nowhere in scripture or Tradition, and in fact the opposite is found in scripture. Yes, Christ is the head, and the Church is one, but I cant believe what you said next... "The church attempts to assemble itself here on earth." Huh? The Holy Spirit assembles the Church. And it assembles it so that it is one Church. God is not the author of disorder. The Church does not "attempt" anything, nor can it do ANYTHING without the animating life of the Holy Spirit, who is the "soul" of the Church. And just as two bodies cannot have one soul, there cannot be such a thing as "churches" which disagree with each other. Unless the Holy Spirit is the author of error.
"The final assembly of the church won't happen until death / Christ's return."
Where do you get that from? You are just making stuff up as you go man. You certainly didn't get that from scripture. In the scripture (which supposedly is your rule) the Church is described as being ONE and VISIBLE, binding and loosing, forgiving sins. Yeah, of course at the end of time after the resurrection, the Church will all be physically together, but that is not the point. The point is RIGHT NOW the Church (according to Scripture) needs to be ONE and VISIBLE. Again something you blithely are ignoring.
"If you find that belief insulting, I'm sorry. However, it is equally insulting to insist your "Pontiff" is the head of the church I am apart of."
What is insulting is not your conclusion, which many people come to, but your lack of good reasons for coming to it. And if you are insulted by having a pope, you are insulted by Christ then. He is the one who gave Peter the keys, and the power to bind and loose in heaven and on earth. Jesus said to his apostles "he who hears you hears me".
"I have no use for them or the office they claim to hold."
Yeah I gathered that. But just a correction, there is no mere "claim", there is a historic fact. The current Bishop of Rome is descended in ordinations from St. Peter. That is rarely disputed by anyone except the most mental fundies. If you look at the book I lent you by Fortiscue, (which was written to Anglicans btw) you will see a very basic sketch of the evidence up till Chalcedon of the Papal role in the Church and the uncontroversial nature of the succession. That is IF you read it, which at this point I think is just beyond you. Your level of argument with me has never exceeded the level of the most surface level internet "shock" apologetics. Case in point was when you thought you had really struck gold finding out that the Catholic 10 commandments are different and claiming they changed them so they could commit idolatry. I pointed out that Luther numbered them the same way, and I get silence from you. You obviously want to just pick up whatever sloppy argument from the internet you can to prove what you want to be true: Rome is the Antichrist. Or need I bring up the example of the "low hanging fruit" you attempted to pick from the Catholic tree of errors. What was the lowest fruit you could find? The perpetual virginity of Mary! Again, something Luther and Calvin believed, as with many modern Protestants and Catholic such as Augustine. It is low hanging fruit for the already convinced, but not for anyone interested in reality.
Even James White and his crew at AOM at least make an attempt to reference the early Church, you seem to have no desire to do so. And unlike the clipped haired Lesbian Bishops of your future ecclesial community, Catholic Bishops are in communion with Rome, something the early Church considered necessary to be called the Church. But of course to you, all those men were idolatrous (bowing to images), necromancing (praying to the dead), anti-Christ (submitting to the pope) and legalistic (rejected sola fide). Yep, they all got it wrong but the Reformation and Bob got it right.
What I find most revealing at this point is that less than two months ago you had basically decided on Catholicism and were agreeing that it's claim to being the true Church was valid and saying thing like:
"I think the evidence points more towards God punishing the RC church with protestantism for failing to root out evil. At the same time, the protestants are wrong for schisming."
I couldn't agree more.
One month ago you said:
"My guess is we'll end up at the church of the sacred heart in Robinsdale."
Then a week later you were calling Rome the anti-christ! To me this says it all dude. You are being led by emotions or something to be that up and down in so short a time. And when I read your current critiques of Catholicism, which have included all the most trite red herrings and straw men available, I can't help but conclude you are not really looking into serious arguments on either side. You seemed very easily swayed towards Catholicism 2 months ago. I assumed you had been really looking into things. I am convinced that you have not however. Now that you are on the other bandwagon of hating the evil Romanists, you are still operating on the same emotional level. Homosexual Priests? Yes, remember you seriously gave that as an argument against Catholicism! The "changing the 10 commandments" straw man? You still have not conceded that you were duped (probably by some goofy website) on that one. Like I keep saying, go ahead and reject the Catholic Church, it's been done many times by better men than me and you. But either admit you just don't care to do the research to make an informed choice (which imo is quite obviously the case) OR be fair and do the research enough to find some real, solid Protestant objections. They are out there, I have heard them, but so far you have failed to find them or articulate them. If you truly think the "naughty popes" or "worshipping statues" arguments are good, solid arguments, then it is game over for the truth. You will be tossed about by whichever window-dressing argument you find.
THAT is what I find sad... not that you would reject Catholicism, but the poor reasons you are doing so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment