From a comment on Shameless Popery, a Lutheran minister asks:
"Would you really want Leo X to be the next Pope?"
My response:
The question implies an assumption that the pope is merely a man in all respects. But that is not what Catholics believe. We believe he is "protected" from teaching error when he determines to publicly teach the Church. That is a supernatural protection.
Personally I would not want Leo X as the next pope, but NOT because he might teach error, (that could never happen and HAS never happened) I would want someone like SAINT Pius X because he would be a better man and a better leader, and perhaps bring more people to Christ. Just remenber, a pope could murder and pillage and do all sorts of evil yet still be protected from teaching error. Think of the prophecy of Caiphas.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Women belong in the home. Men belong at work. Any questions femi-nazis?
And yes, of course the exceptions prove the rule. I myself was raised by a single Mom who HAD to work. Key word: HAD. But lets not play games and pretend it is ok for a woman to choose that role unless it is a necessity/exception. Just having to give this caveat shows how far we have degenerated as a society.
Word on Fire contributor Dave Brenner made what I think are some common observations in an article today. All true and very sad. But I think he is way off the mark in his solution to the problem. The article is about how women are outpacing men in all areas of society now. His proposed solution is a sort of "let them eat cake" thing. My paraphrase would be something like "Do better, men". Well, it ain't that easy. Men and women are different, and papering over the gross abuse of gender roles in our culture is not helpful. I tried commenting on the blog, but I don't know if it went through, so here was my comment, beginning with a quote from the author:
''Those statistics are not a problem by themselves—it’s a good thing that women have more opportunities and are striving to fulfill their calling in life. The issue is not that women are catching up but that men are falling behind. ''
I disagree and I think you have truly missed the point. And missed it badly. When women are prominent in any important endeavor, they take it over completely, leaving men in their dust. The men will invariably turn into Seth Rogan. This is at the heart of Eve's curse to "desire her husband". She desires the authority position proper to men. When women en masse become players in the workforce or academics, it will never be 50/50. The women will win, and men will drop out.
For me it is frustrating to see so many women at my workplace taking jobs/pay away from fathers trying to support our families who are unemployed. And for what? An extra car to be able to go to work in your pant-suit?
The vast majority of these women by and large should be at home fulfilling their role as wife and mother. Raising godly children to conquer the world for Christ is the most important job in the world! Yet many women throw that chance away to collect a paycheck doing things they have no business doing. Their job is to nurture children and being a HELPER to their husbands, not taking on his role.
There can be no parity.
There can be no 50/50 of men/women in the workplace and university. If women try to fill men's roles, then the curse of Eve takes effect and God will give them over to their arrogation. The result is that men WILL become disillusioned and WILL give up. Which is exactly what is happening. Make fun of immature men all day, but unless we call our women back to their proper role, don't expect men to take back theirs.
What we men need to do is yell this truth from the rooftops. Get our women back in the home and out of the workforce, and take charge of society again. Until we reassert our role as the "garden tamers" God created men to be, women will continue to usurp our birthright, and to give up theirs at the same time. I the end, both sexes will not be fulfilled, and find only frustration. This is not sexist people, just true.
Word on Fire contributor Dave Brenner made what I think are some common observations in an article today. All true and very sad. But I think he is way off the mark in his solution to the problem. The article is about how women are outpacing men in all areas of society now. His proposed solution is a sort of "let them eat cake" thing. My paraphrase would be something like "Do better, men". Well, it ain't that easy. Men and women are different, and papering over the gross abuse of gender roles in our culture is not helpful. I tried commenting on the blog, but I don't know if it went through, so here was my comment, beginning with a quote from the author:
''Those statistics are not a problem by themselves—it’s a good thing that women have more opportunities and are striving to fulfill their calling in life. The issue is not that women are catching up but that men are falling behind. ''
I disagree and I think you have truly missed the point. And missed it badly. When women are prominent in any important endeavor, they take it over completely, leaving men in their dust. The men will invariably turn into Seth Rogan. This is at the heart of Eve's curse to "desire her husband". She desires the authority position proper to men. When women en masse become players in the workforce or academics, it will never be 50/50. The women will win, and men will drop out.
For me it is frustrating to see so many women at my workplace taking jobs/pay away from fathers trying to support our families who are unemployed. And for what? An extra car to be able to go to work in your pant-suit?
The vast majority of these women by and large should be at home fulfilling their role as wife and mother. Raising godly children to conquer the world for Christ is the most important job in the world! Yet many women throw that chance away to collect a paycheck doing things they have no business doing. Their job is to nurture children and being a HELPER to their husbands, not taking on his role.
There can be no parity.
There can be no 50/50 of men/women in the workplace and university. If women try to fill men's roles, then the curse of Eve takes effect and God will give them over to their arrogation. The result is that men WILL become disillusioned and WILL give up. Which is exactly what is happening. Make fun of immature men all day, but unless we call our women back to their proper role, don't expect men to take back theirs.
What we men need to do is yell this truth from the rooftops. Get our women back in the home and out of the workforce, and take charge of society again. Until we reassert our role as the "garden tamers" God created men to be, women will continue to usurp our birthright, and to give up theirs at the same time. I the end, both sexes will not be fulfilled, and find only frustration. This is not sexist people, just true.
A Former Reformer is Coming Home
My old friend Andre has decided to swim the Tiber. Any Catholic readers here please go ahead and subscribe to his new blog Former Reformer and give him some encouragement and advice in this strange and exciting time for him and his family. On a personal note, it is nice to have a local Reformed friend here in the Twin Cities on the Catholic side of the river now.
On a recent post he compared the Reformed and Catholic liturgies/theologies and said that unlike the Reformed system:
"...the true work and involvement is done at the Mass, where we meet Christ at Calvary and pray on our knees to break the power of the enemy. The fact that I was weary in my faith because I didn't feel like I was living up to the "Reformed theology standard of living" was because I was without the Eucharist. God's word did not return void,..."
I replied:
I just have to comment again! This past weekend, I went to confession and was totally renewed. I had some sins weighing on my mind and I let them go in the confessional, and Christ absolved me in the person of His priest. I then walked out of the confessional and kneeled down. It was the middle of the consecration, and as I joined my prayer with that of the silent group of people around me, I had a tangible sense of the "other-worldly" nature of what I was experiencing.
This was not about a sermon. It was not about tithing. It was not about being chummy with my buddies at church. It was about meeting God and destroying evil in myself and in the world. As RC Sproul would say, it was about being "coram deo". Before the face of God. When I looked up at the altar and saw Christ offering His body and blood to the Father, and thought of my former experience in Reformed churches, I thought how starved I had really been. Going from Reformed to Catholic is like going from an intravenous drip to thanksgiving dinner.
On a recent post he compared the Reformed and Catholic liturgies/theologies and said that unlike the Reformed system:
"...the true work and involvement is done at the Mass, where we meet Christ at Calvary and pray on our knees to break the power of the enemy. The fact that I was weary in my faith because I didn't feel like I was living up to the "Reformed theology standard of living" was because I was without the Eucharist. God's word did not return void,..."
I replied:
I just have to comment again! This past weekend, I went to confession and was totally renewed. I had some sins weighing on my mind and I let them go in the confessional, and Christ absolved me in the person of His priest. I then walked out of the confessional and kneeled down. It was the middle of the consecration, and as I joined my prayer with that of the silent group of people around me, I had a tangible sense of the "other-worldly" nature of what I was experiencing.
This was not about a sermon. It was not about tithing. It was not about being chummy with my buddies at church. It was about meeting God and destroying evil in myself and in the world. As RC Sproul would say, it was about being "coram deo". Before the face of God. When I looked up at the altar and saw Christ offering His body and blood to the Father, and thought of my former experience in Reformed churches, I thought how starved I had really been. Going from Reformed to Catholic is like going from an intravenous drip to thanksgiving dinner.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Here is an appetizer:
Our world is in the pitifully awkward position of informing us that our gravest sins are not sinful at all, while damning the most modest and the most innocent of our vices. Thus we have it that abortion and euthanasia are in and with-it, masturbation is healthy, pornography is good for your marriage, sodomy is an old-fashioned, oppressive term…and it is illegal to smoke in a bar. (I mean, my dear man! We do have standards, you know.) The daring and exciting – Kinky Sex OMG! – is toted as normal, while boring, old, human vice – smoking, drinking and punching other men – is outlawed, banned, damned for ever existing. There is no shame in killing babies, but you better be sure you follow the sign: ‘employees are legally required to wash their hands before returning to work.’
More on the site: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/10/serial-killers-are-boring/
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
It finally happened
My two oldest were exposed to the reality of being the Catholic minority in a Protestant saturated culture. The little angels found themselves eating proverbial hamburgers in a Hindu cow shrine yesterday. Blissfully unaware of themselves.
First off, let me say that I love having other Christian kids on the block for my kids to play with. The alternative could be bad. There are two/three solid Evangelical households on the block, and having some of our values overlap is quite refreshing. But eventually the distinctives clash. As they did yesterday.
Near my house there is a roadside memorial for a lady who drove off the road and hit a phone pole. She was a young mother who had too much to drink and should have called a cab. Sad stuff. Every now and then someone puts up a fresh picture on the pole or ties a balloon to it or something. Yesterday I noticed a new balloon and suggested to my 6 and 8 year old daughters to ride down there on their bikes and say the Night Prayer in memory of her. They did, and a little while later they went back, but this time the Baptist and non-denom neighbor kids went with them.
Uh, yeah. lets just say these kids were not impressed about praying for dead people. My 8 year old comes back to her good ol' dad (who is enjoying his pipe and a vodka tonic on the porch), and says "I don't get it, they keep saying that there is no such thing as purgatory and we shouldn't pray for the dead lady." My response was "Annabel, you know Protestants don't believe in Purgatory right, and get upset about praying for dead people right? Remember?"
She gave me a puzzled look. "Really?!"
I guess the topic had never come up in any of my Reformed theological training with her from our Protestant past. "She is really getting the whole "Catholic thing" down as second nature" I thought to myself. "Cool!"
After further debriefing, I found out that the neighbor lady had said "she is long gone, so there is no point in praying for her." Her son also informed my girls that all they needed to do was say the "salvation prayer" and they could be guaranteed to go to heaven.
By the way, didn't Protestants used to call that the sinners prayer? I suppose that is to offensive now. The Jesus salvation slot machine cant have any words like SIN associated with it, goodness no! We just want to pull the lever once and hit the jackpot. Anyhoo...
The 12 year old neighbor girl also informed my daughter that purgatory is not real because it is not in the bible. (BS, it is in the bible) And then she informed Annabel that she only believed things that are in the bible. Her pre-teen description of sola scriptura of course... is not in the bible, but lets not look at the man behind the curtain kids, keep your heads down and repeat the mantra please. Repeat after me:
we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...
Will it become true if it is repeated a hundred more times? 500 years of Protestantism and counting. I think they will be repeating it for a while more. And if each denomination they have spawned only repeated it once, it would take another hundred years just to hear them.
So click your heals Dorothy, and repeat after me... there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home...
My daughter was a bit rattled by the forcefulness and preachiness of the other kids, but she is a trooper. And next time this happens, she can ask them why they don't confess sins to a priest like Jesus says to in the bible.
Or why they disregard Tradition contrary to the bible.
I love, love, love that she is getting some practice defending the faith. That's my girl!
First off, let me say that I love having other Christian kids on the block for my kids to play with. The alternative could be bad. There are two/three solid Evangelical households on the block, and having some of our values overlap is quite refreshing. But eventually the distinctives clash. As they did yesterday.
Near my house there is a roadside memorial for a lady who drove off the road and hit a phone pole. She was a young mother who had too much to drink and should have called a cab. Sad stuff. Every now and then someone puts up a fresh picture on the pole or ties a balloon to it or something. Yesterday I noticed a new balloon and suggested to my 6 and 8 year old daughters to ride down there on their bikes and say the Night Prayer in memory of her. They did, and a little while later they went back, but this time the Baptist and non-denom neighbor kids went with them.
Uh, yeah. lets just say these kids were not impressed about praying for dead people. My 8 year old comes back to her good ol' dad (who is enjoying his pipe and a vodka tonic on the porch), and says "I don't get it, they keep saying that there is no such thing as purgatory and we shouldn't pray for the dead lady." My response was "Annabel, you know Protestants don't believe in Purgatory right, and get upset about praying for dead people right? Remember?"
She gave me a puzzled look. "Really?!"
I guess the topic had never come up in any of my Reformed theological training with her from our Protestant past. "She is really getting the whole "Catholic thing" down as second nature" I thought to myself. "Cool!"
After further debriefing, I found out that the neighbor lady had said "she is long gone, so there is no point in praying for her." Her son also informed my girls that all they needed to do was say the "salvation prayer" and they could be guaranteed to go to heaven.
By the way, didn't Protestants used to call that the sinners prayer? I suppose that is to offensive now. The Jesus salvation slot machine cant have any words like SIN associated with it, goodness no! We just want to pull the lever once and hit the jackpot. Anyhoo...
The 12 year old neighbor girl also informed my daughter that purgatory is not real because it is not in the bible. (BS, it is in the bible) And then she informed Annabel that she only believed things that are in the bible. Her pre-teen description of sola scriptura of course... is not in the bible, but lets not look at the man behind the curtain kids, keep your heads down and repeat the mantra please. Repeat after me:
we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...we only believe what is in the bible...
Will it become true if it is repeated a hundred more times? 500 years of Protestantism and counting. I think they will be repeating it for a while more. And if each denomination they have spawned only repeated it once, it would take another hundred years just to hear them.
So click your heals Dorothy, and repeat after me... there's no place like home...there's no place like home...there's no place like home...
My daughter was a bit rattled by the forcefulness and preachiness of the other kids, but she is a trooper. And next time this happens, she can ask them why they don't confess sins to a priest like Jesus says to in the bible.
Or why they disregard Tradition contrary to the bible.
I love, love, love that she is getting some practice defending the faith. That's my girl!
Monday, October 3, 2011
"Sneaky" Catholic Ten Commandments
Bob said:
I took your advice, and started reading the RCC Catechism. I'm pretty sure I found a place where the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error. It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it.
In particular, the issue is the teaching of the 10 commandments. I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17.
The RCC, however, in teaching their catechism does something quite sneaky. The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment, making it a footnote of the first and stripping it of any meaning. Instead of "You shall not make for yourself an image", the teaching is "images of saints are OK".
All the other commandments then get bumped up a number... which leaves you with 9. Not exactly convincing, since at the very least people know that God gave Moses 10. To make up for this discrepancy, they split the true 10th commandment into 2 commandments - effectively "don't covet" and "don't covet v. 2".
You can see this teaching quite clearly from the Vatican website - just scroll through the table of contents, it should jump out at you. The 10 commandments are in part 3 section 2.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols. At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them. I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.
Bob, you made it really far into the CCC! Or you are skipping around. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin. Either way, congrats for going to the source for your research. That makes choices easier.
Unfortunately you say:
"It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it."
Well, if it passed muster as being evidence, then I would consider it, but it just does not. Neither would Luther BTW, but I will get to that.
Here is what the INTRO to the section on the first commandment says:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."
The prohibition against making graven images is right there in the catechism Bob!
My daughter learned the 10 commandments last year in her religion class at Holy Family and she learned the part about graven images. We just number them differently, as do many PROTESTANTS who have zero love for Rome.
Get this Bob, my LUTHERAN mother learned the “graven images” as part of the FIRST commandment too! That is right, perhaps you don’t know this (perhaps because you grew up Reformed) but Lutherans use the same numbering as Catholics! So did many church fathers, among which Augustine stands out. And Orthodox (who venerate images like there is no tomorrow) use the Reformed numbering, go figure. (or I guess the Reformed use the Orthodox numbering… chicken/egg thing)
So are Lutherans “sneaky” too?
“I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17”
Uh, yeah, so do all Christians. No crap. But if you’ll notice, they are not numbered dude. They are also in Deuteronomy 5, but there again, no numbering.
“The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment…”
Huh? The second commandment for Catholics is to not take the Lord’s name in vain. Potentially a mortal sin because it is a serious matter. We don’t diminish it! You are using your numbering to correct their (and Luther’s and Augustines) numbering. Who cares about numbering. The point is what the commandments SAY. And Catholics still accept fully the command against graven images. As do you. We just understand it differently.
The point is though, the prohibition against graven images IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CATHOLIC FIRST COMMANDMENT! Nothing is ignored or deleted! For goodness sake Bob, even the Rabbis from the Jewish Talmidic tradition have traditionally held all the separate parts of the first commandment (Catholic one) to form one solid unit.
There are THREE parts of the same prohibition of idolatry, which I know you agree are all related: 1. Have no other gods before God, 2. Don’t make idols, 3. Don’t bow down to idols.
Catholics (and Lutherans) have ALL THREE in their first commandment. You have parts 2 and 3 as your second commandment. Both ways have them though.
Which begs the question, why isnt your third commandment Exodus 20:5/Deut 5:9 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them…”?
These Deuteronomy and Exodus verses are specifically about not bowing down, and are some of the more lengthy verses. Certainly longer than the “You shall not kill” ones. So WHY is that not one of your 10? Could it be because it is so similar to the other 2 parts of the commandment (no other gods, no graven images) that it is redundant to make it its own commandment?
Within the CCC section titled “the first commandment”, is a whole section about graven images. No sneakyness. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM
What you don’t like is your interpretation contradicting the other ¾ of Christendom of the past 2000 years.
The Orthodox have your numbering, yet venerate images!
The Holy Spirit, through the Church at the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) has spoken, and you want to do your own thing.
“The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols.”
Yeah, it is a big conspiracy. With the Orthodox as well. 2000 years of godly men are all deceived, but Bob is not. Yeah.
“At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them.”
It was tackled in 787AD! Been there done that! And the Orthodox have YOUR numbering but yet still venerate images! So there is no numbers game.
“ I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.”
The Word of God IS the Tradition AND the Scripture! You are making a false division of two inseperable things. And what you are calling the “Word of God” is really just your interpretation. Unless you want to show me where the numbering system is in the scripture. Even Luther would be looking at you with the squinty eyes right now man.
Veneration is not idolatry. Saying it is "obviously" idolatry is not convincing. Because MOST Christians of all ages have had zero problem with veneration of saints through images. Even ones who were angered by pagan images of false gods have venerated images of Christ and the saints! They saw a clear distinction between the two practices.
Peace
I took your advice, and started reading the RCC Catechism. I'm pretty sure I found a place where the Roman Catholic Church is teaching error. It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it.
In particular, the issue is the teaching of the 10 commandments. I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17.
The RCC, however, in teaching their catechism does something quite sneaky. The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment, making it a footnote of the first and stripping it of any meaning. Instead of "You shall not make for yourself an image", the teaching is "images of saints are OK".
All the other commandments then get bumped up a number... which leaves you with 9. Not exactly convincing, since at the very least people know that God gave Moses 10. To make up for this discrepancy, they split the true 10th commandment into 2 commandments - effectively "don't covet" and "don't covet v. 2".
You can see this teaching quite clearly from the Vatican website - just scroll through the table of contents, it should jump out at you. The 10 commandments are in part 3 section 2.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM
The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols. At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them. I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.
Bob, you made it really far into the CCC! Or you are skipping around. Nothing wrong with that, just sayin. Either way, congrats for going to the source for your research. That makes choices easier.
Unfortunately you say:
"It is sufficient evidence for me, but I'm sure that you lot won't accept it."
Well, if it passed muster as being evidence, then I would consider it, but it just does not. Neither would Luther BTW, but I will get to that.
Here is what the INTRO to the section on the first commandment says:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7B.HTM
THE FIRST COMMANDMENT
I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: "You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve."
The prohibition against making graven images is right there in the catechism Bob!
My daughter learned the 10 commandments last year in her religion class at Holy Family and she learned the part about graven images. We just number them differently, as do many PROTESTANTS who have zero love for Rome.
Get this Bob, my LUTHERAN mother learned the “graven images” as part of the FIRST commandment too! That is right, perhaps you don’t know this (perhaps because you grew up Reformed) but Lutherans use the same numbering as Catholics! So did many church fathers, among which Augustine stands out. And Orthodox (who venerate images like there is no tomorrow) use the Reformed numbering, go figure. (or I guess the Reformed use the Orthodox numbering… chicken/egg thing)
So are Lutherans “sneaky” too?
“I understand and recognize the ten commandments to be those laid out in Exodus 20: 3-17”
Uh, yeah, so do all Christians. No crap. But if you’ll notice, they are not numbered dude. They are also in Deuteronomy 5, but there again, no numbering.
“The first thing they do is diminish the 2nd commandment…”
Huh? The second commandment for Catholics is to not take the Lord’s name in vain. Potentially a mortal sin because it is a serious matter. We don’t diminish it! You are using your numbering to correct their (and Luther’s and Augustines) numbering. Who cares about numbering. The point is what the commandments SAY. And Catholics still accept fully the command against graven images. As do you. We just understand it differently.
The point is though, the prohibition against graven images IS RIGHT THERE IN THE CATHOLIC FIRST COMMANDMENT! Nothing is ignored or deleted! For goodness sake Bob, even the Rabbis from the Jewish Talmidic tradition have traditionally held all the separate parts of the first commandment (Catholic one) to form one solid unit.
There are THREE parts of the same prohibition of idolatry, which I know you agree are all related: 1. Have no other gods before God, 2. Don’t make idols, 3. Don’t bow down to idols.
Catholics (and Lutherans) have ALL THREE in their first commandment. You have parts 2 and 3 as your second commandment. Both ways have them though.
Which begs the question, why isnt your third commandment Exodus 20:5/Deut 5:9 “You shall not bow down to them or serve them…”?
These Deuteronomy and Exodus verses are specifically about not bowing down, and are some of the more lengthy verses. Certainly longer than the “You shall not kill” ones. So WHY is that not one of your 10? Could it be because it is so similar to the other 2 parts of the commandment (no other gods, no graven images) that it is redundant to make it its own commandment?
Within the CCC section titled “the first commandment”, is a whole section about graven images. No sneakyness. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7F.HTM
What you don’t like is your interpretation contradicting the other ¾ of Christendom of the past 2000 years.
The Orthodox have your numbering, yet venerate images!
The Holy Spirit, through the Church at the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) has spoken, and you want to do your own thing.
“The obvious reason for this is that the RCC has tons of idols, but they don't want to admit they are idols.”
Yeah, it is a big conspiracy. With the Orthodox as well. 2000 years of godly men are all deceived, but Bob is not. Yeah.
“At the very least, they should have tackled this commandment head-on instead of playing a numbers game with them.”
It was tackled in 787AD! Been there done that! And the Orthodox have YOUR numbering but yet still venerate images! So there is no numbers game.
“ I guess this is just a case where the tradition knows more than the actual Word of God.”
The Word of God IS the Tradition AND the Scripture! You are making a false division of two inseperable things. And what you are calling the “Word of God” is really just your interpretation. Unless you want to show me where the numbering system is in the scripture. Even Luther would be looking at you with the squinty eyes right now man.
Veneration is not idolatry. Saying it is "obviously" idolatry is not convincing. Because MOST Christians of all ages have had zero problem with veneration of saints through images. Even ones who were angered by pagan images of false gods have venerated images of Christ and the saints! They saw a clear distinction between the two practices.
Peace
Reformed "Authority"
This is a comment I left at the Reformed site Green Baggins:
I am glad they exonerated Lawrence, and my former pastor Josh Moon. The confession you all subscribe to says all disputes are to be resolved by scripture. That is what everyone here is doing, and you all are doing the best you can. When I read Rev. Dr. Moon, or TE Lawrence, or most of what has been written here in these comments, I think to myself “sounds fair enough”. You all have very good points, and take the scripture at its word as best you are able.
The obvious problem is you all disagree as to WHAT the scripture is saying.
That is problem one.
Problem two comes in when your own authorities decide a matter, and those who are supposedly in submission to that authority decide they will just ignore it in favor of their own! (Comment #36,)
And all those who disagree with their exegesis are “Christ’s enemies” (#100)!
Hmm, well, having been someone you would probably accuse of being an “FV” guy myself fro having believed in baptismal regen and paedocom, (although I would have just called myself a bible believing Reformed Christian) and having known Josh Moon and many men like him which you accuse of being FV, all I can say is have fun in your tiny denomination. If you are willing to turn on men like Moon and lawrence and refuse to even call them brothers, and call them “enemies of Christ”, and yet these men agree with you on so very much, much more than most evangelicals certainly, then you will just have to leave the PCA and start your own new micro-denomination I guess (gee that is a new concept). When will it end?
What do the worker bees in the pew do? I was one of those guys. No theological training beyond bedtime theology reading and R.C. Sproul videos. But I desperately loved Reformed theology. But when someone like me starts to agree with Wilson AND Sproul, Horton AND Leithart, both “sides” sounded biblical to me. Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? what do I do then?
You cannot answer that question. All you will say is “read the scriptures” or on a bad day you will say “listen to me read the scriptures”. But in the end, when I cannot choose who is right or wrong, and both sides sound scriptural, what do I do? Who do I listen to? Who is right and who is wrong? Where is the authority which is supposed to be so solid in the Reformed polity when the GA passes down a verdict and people choose to ignore it anyway? Doesn’t that prove who is really in charge? Doesn’t that prove that that person will only agree with the GA decision if it agrees with their opinion?
Instead of “semper reformanda” or “sola Scriptura”, I have a new suggestion for the 21st century Reformed motto:
“When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
Though I am now a Catholic, I still long for unity with you brothers. Ironically, some here would not consider me a brother as a Catholic OR an FVer. I can’t win.
Peace,
David Meyer
I am glad they exonerated Lawrence, and my former pastor Josh Moon. The confession you all subscribe to says all disputes are to be resolved by scripture. That is what everyone here is doing, and you all are doing the best you can. When I read Rev. Dr. Moon, or TE Lawrence, or most of what has been written here in these comments, I think to myself “sounds fair enough”. You all have very good points, and take the scripture at its word as best you are able.
The obvious problem is you all disagree as to WHAT the scripture is saying.
That is problem one.
Problem two comes in when your own authorities decide a matter, and those who are supposedly in submission to that authority decide they will just ignore it in favor of their own! (Comment #36,)
And all those who disagree with their exegesis are “Christ’s enemies” (#100)!
Hmm, well, having been someone you would probably accuse of being an “FV” guy myself fro having believed in baptismal regen and paedocom, (although I would have just called myself a bible believing Reformed Christian) and having known Josh Moon and many men like him which you accuse of being FV, all I can say is have fun in your tiny denomination. If you are willing to turn on men like Moon and lawrence and refuse to even call them brothers, and call them “enemies of Christ”, and yet these men agree with you on so very much, much more than most evangelicals certainly, then you will just have to leave the PCA and start your own new micro-denomination I guess (gee that is a new concept). When will it end?
What do the worker bees in the pew do? I was one of those guys. No theological training beyond bedtime theology reading and R.C. Sproul videos. But I desperately loved Reformed theology. But when someone like me starts to agree with Wilson AND Sproul, Horton AND Leithart, both “sides” sounded biblical to me. Who gets to decide who is right and who is wrong? what do I do then?
You cannot answer that question. All you will say is “read the scriptures” or on a bad day you will say “listen to me read the scriptures”. But in the end, when I cannot choose who is right or wrong, and both sides sound scriptural, what do I do? Who do I listen to? Who is right and who is wrong? Where is the authority which is supposed to be so solid in the Reformed polity when the GA passes down a verdict and people choose to ignore it anyway? Doesn’t that prove who is really in charge? Doesn’t that prove that that person will only agree with the GA decision if it agrees with their opinion?
Instead of “semper reformanda” or “sola Scriptura”, I have a new suggestion for the 21st century Reformed motto:
“When I submit (so long as I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.”
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
Though I am now a Catholic, I still long for unity with you brothers. Ironically, some here would not consider me a brother as a Catholic OR an FVer. I can’t win.
Peace,
David Meyer
Friday, September 30, 2011
Beautiful.
St. Francis and St. Claire, pray for us.
P.S. Thank you to my Mom, who introduced me to this movie. I still havent watched it as a Catholic, I cant wait. If you have not seen it, it is Brother Sun Sister Moon, By Franco Zeffirelli.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069824/
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Eternal rest, grant unto him O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon him.
May he rest in peace.
Amen.
Best. Argument. Ever: Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser
Bob,
you said:
Defending Spain is Spain's problem. I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief.
England, France, Germany - their all currently "under siege" by the Muslims again. Are we to expect another Crusade? If the Crusades were a good idea, I would expect to see them done again. Perhaps this time good Roman Catholics should come to the aid of the Iraquis or Afghans against the imperialist USA and our evil god of Materialism.
Again - Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser (that jab will never get old :) ). Go google it, there are pictures and everything.
My response:
"I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief."
1. That is what the crusades were! The fact that the pope recognized who was on the right team is somehow bad to you though? When a dozen modern popes recognized the fact that communism was evil, does that mean they are stepping out of bounds? You really have not shown why that is wrong of them to take a stand. And you certainly have not shown that it disproves their claim of authority.
2. The term "Roman Catholic" did not exist until the Reformation in England. Google ANACHRONISM. Most of your complaints against the Church are dripping with it.
JP2 was dumb to kiss a Koran. Even the current pope has said as much. But what is dumber is that you think you have proven something by pointing it out. What does it prove? Just like your south African bishop example, it proves nothing I didn't already know: People are stupid and do stupid things. JP2 could have been a porn star and you could chuckle at pics all day, but in the end you have proven nothing. I take this stuff seriously dude, so meet Catholicism at its claims or don't bother. Pointing out a pope doing something scandalous is not the same as showing he taught error.
Also it proves that you like to get information from sensational sources on the internet. But again, if you reflect on what you are trying to prove by that example, you might find that you don't even know. I certainly don't. If you are trying to prove a pope can do stupid shit, then congrats, you win! But if this is the kind of thing that you are researching and think is important, then obviously you really don't care to investigate Catholicism honestly. Have you even read through the catechism?
I will tell you the answer: NO you have not.
It probably isn't sensational enough for your taste. You might as well find a site that describes Priests that have abused little kids. Get the graphic details and bring it up as an example for me of why the Catholic Church is bad. That seems to be your level of argument.
Actual Catholic Catachism... nah.
Sedevacantist websites... yeah!
I remember when I became a Calvinist a fundamentalist friend pointing out the whole Servetus thing in Geneva where Calvin killed a dude. I thought then and I still think now that that example simply does not prove whether Calvinism is correct or not. It proves (perhaps) that Calvin did something stupid, but it does not disprove any of the tenets of Calvinism. My friends argument was bad then, because he did not prove that Calvinism is inconsistent, and it is bad now. Just like your arguments.
If he would have proven to me at the time that Calvinism was internally inconsistent, (or even attempted to do so) I would have given an ear, but he did not do so.
Also his continued form of that type of argumentation made it clear to me he was simply not interested in the truth, but merely jacking off.
you said:
Defending Spain is Spain's problem. I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief.
England, France, Germany - their all currently "under siege" by the Muslims again. Are we to expect another Crusade? If the Crusades were a good idea, I would expect to see them done again. Perhaps this time good Roman Catholics should come to the aid of the Iraquis or Afghans against the imperialist USA and our evil god of Materialism.
Again - Vicar of Christ = Koran Kisser (that jab will never get old :) ). Go google it, there are pictures and everything.
My response:
"I'm sure Spain had a competent king who could have asked France and Germany for aid. He could have even appealed to their shared Roman Catholic belief."
1. That is what the crusades were! The fact that the pope recognized who was on the right team is somehow bad to you though? When a dozen modern popes recognized the fact that communism was evil, does that mean they are stepping out of bounds? You really have not shown why that is wrong of them to take a stand. And you certainly have not shown that it disproves their claim of authority.
2. The term "Roman Catholic" did not exist until the Reformation in England. Google ANACHRONISM. Most of your complaints against the Church are dripping with it.
JP2 was dumb to kiss a Koran. Even the current pope has said as much. But what is dumber is that you think you have proven something by pointing it out. What does it prove? Just like your south African bishop example, it proves nothing I didn't already know: People are stupid and do stupid things. JP2 could have been a porn star and you could chuckle at pics all day, but in the end you have proven nothing. I take this stuff seriously dude, so meet Catholicism at its claims or don't bother. Pointing out a pope doing something scandalous is not the same as showing he taught error.
Also it proves that you like to get information from sensational sources on the internet. But again, if you reflect on what you are trying to prove by that example, you might find that you don't even know. I certainly don't. If you are trying to prove a pope can do stupid shit, then congrats, you win! But if this is the kind of thing that you are researching and think is important, then obviously you really don't care to investigate Catholicism honestly. Have you even read through the catechism?
I will tell you the answer: NO you have not.
It probably isn't sensational enough for your taste. You might as well find a site that describes Priests that have abused little kids. Get the graphic details and bring it up as an example for me of why the Catholic Church is bad. That seems to be your level of argument.
Actual Catholic Catachism... nah.
Sedevacantist websites... yeah!
I remember when I became a Calvinist a fundamentalist friend pointing out the whole Servetus thing in Geneva where Calvin killed a dude. I thought then and I still think now that that example simply does not prove whether Calvinism is correct or not. It proves (perhaps) that Calvin did something stupid, but it does not disprove any of the tenets of Calvinism. My friends argument was bad then, because he did not prove that Calvinism is inconsistent, and it is bad now. Just like your arguments.
If he would have proven to me at the time that Calvinism was internally inconsistent, (or even attempted to do so) I would have given an ear, but he did not do so.
Also his continued form of that type of argumentation made it clear to me he was simply not interested in the truth, but merely jacking off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)