Why are Catholics so bad?

[Mungo]

In my view, neither the Catholics nor Protestants have the right answer. The Catholics rely on their ecclesiastical hierarchy, official catechisms and church tradition to provide guidance. A significant percentage of Catholics don’t even own a copy of the Bible. Whereas, the Protestants believe that every solitary word in their particularly favored authorized version is the indisputable truth (including every doctrine emanating from the Dallas Theological Seminary or their favorite pastor/televangelist). However, what does the beloved Apostle John state?

1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Hi James,
Thanks for your responses.

As regards your scripture quote above I think it’s important to look at the context of this.
John is writing to Christians who he has already catechised, taught them everything, taught them the truth. They do not need to be taught any more. However they are in danger of being led astray by false teachers. We need to start at verse 20

But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. [because John has taught them] I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do [again because John has taught them], and because every lie is alien to the truth. (vs 20,21)

Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you [what they have already been taught by John]. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. (vs 25)
Then we come to verse 27:
As for you, the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you do not need anyone to teach you [because they have already been taught]. But his anointing teaches you about everything and is true and not false; just as it taught you, remain in him. (vs 27)

This is equivalent to the promise Jesus made to the apostles in Jn 14:26
The Advocate, the holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name—he will teach you everything and remind you of all that (I) told you. (Jn 14:26).

John is saying that the Holy Spirit would bring to mind all the true teaching they had already received. That presupposes that they had already received true teaching. But you have to get that true teaching first. You cannot generate it from your own resources. You cannot reach the truth by starting from scratch, but only by receiving it from those who have already been taught it and can pass it on. Then when you are presented with false teaching the Holy Spirit will bring to mind the truth that you have already been taught.

This where Martin Luther and the other reformers went wrong. They thought they could reject the teaching authority of the Church and start from scratch with just the Bible. And that is why Protestantism has fractured into thousands of denominations with many opposing doctrines.

Alright, you’ve demonstrated that there ARE some scripture references in Catholic services but they aren’t renowned for having regular Bible studies like Protestant believers.

True we are not renowned for it but Catholics do have prayer meetings with Bible study. Last year I did a 24 week Bible Study course run by a local prayer group. But the Mass and prayer meetings are different types of gatherings for different purposes.

I know it sounds utterly ridiculous and I also know the housing market is rough these days but that’s what a number of Catholics do to sell their property:

http://www.ehow.com/...eph-statue.html
http://www.st-joseph...m/st_joseph.htm

http://www.catholics...tmas/stjoe.html to buy your very own St. Joseph Home Selling Kit

http://www.snopes.co...ck/stjoseph.asp

Here’s the specific instructions:

* Bury the statue in the yard, the exact location varies, most common is in the front of the house. Favorable spots are either close to the "For Sale" sign or close to the road.

(THIS PART BELOW IS PARTICULARLY HILARIOUS!)

* Bury the statue upsidedown, facing the house.

Actually, (according to Snopes.com) different realtors quote different placements of the statue:

• Upside down, near the 'For Sale' sign in the front yard. (An upside down St. Joseph is said to work extra hard to get out of the ground and onto someone's mantel.)
• Right side up.
• In the rear yard, possibly in a flower bed.
• Lying on its back and pointing towards the house "like an arrow."
• Three feet from the rear of the house.
• Facing the house.
• Facing away from the house. (One who tried this reported the house across the street sold, and it hadn't even been up for sale.)
• Exactly 12 inches deep.

* Pray to Saint Joseph when you are burying him and keep praying until the house is sold.

* But the most important part is to have faith all the time, in Yourself, in Your Sale and in Saint Joseph.

* After your house is sold you should to take him with you to your new home and put him in a place of honor.

Totally ridiculous, but then Estate Agents (Realtors in USA) will do anything to sell houses. I think the comment in the snopes article is about right “Folklore purports to have the remedy”. You won’t find any Catholic document supporting this silly practice.

I wouldn’t be too zealous to excommunicate Sedevacantists. There’s a friend of mine who’s one and swears “They are the REAL Catholics!” and the rest of the RCC is errant. It appears that the Protestants don’t have the corner on the market of sectarianism.

They have excommunicated themselves. Since they do not recognise the Pope, and therefore not in communion with him, they are not part of the Catholic Church whatever they might say.

By all means, Mungo. I’m enjoying the dialog and find the discussion rather refreshing.

Ok, here is another one:

50. Crucifix & scapulas worn as charms or fashion statements. The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, an English monk, in the year 1287 A.D., It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism.

That Simon Stock invented the scapula is a pious tradition not a historical fact. And according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia he died in 1265, some 22 years before your claim that he invented the scapula.

If anyone is using a scapula as a lucky charm, with the beliefs you give above, then they are wrong. However we need to distinguish between what the Catholic Church officially teaches and sanctions, and what some ignorant and stupid Catholics do.

The most popular scapula is the brown scapula of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (the one associated with Simon Stock).

I found this on Carmelnet.org (quotes in red):

The Scapular finds its roots in the tradition of the Order [that's the Carmelites], which has seen in it a sign of Mary’s motherly protection. It has therefore, a centuries old spiritual meaning approved by Church.

It stands for a commitment to follow Jesus, like Mary, the perfect model of all the disciples of Christ. This commitment finds its origin in baptism by which we become children of God.

It leads us into the community of Carmel, a community of religious men and women, which has existed in the Church for over eight centuries.

It reminds us of the example of the saints of Carmel, with whom we establish a close bond as brothers and sisters to one another.

It is an expression of our belief that we will meet God in eternal life, aided by the intercession and prayers of Mary.

This is important:

The Carmelite Scapular is not:
a magical charm to protect you
an automatic guarantee of salvation
an excuse for not living up to the demands of the Christian life

It is a sign:
which has been approved by the Church for over seven centuries;
which stands for the decision to
- follow Jesus like Mary:
- be open to God and to his will
- be guided by faith, hope, and love
- to pray at all times
- to discover God present in all that happens around us.

(Note that the site tells is that this is The only official text regarding the Brown Scapular written by a joint commission of OCD’s (Discalced Carmelite Order) and OCarm’s (Carmelite Order) in 1999.)

I should perhaps say more about how scapulas came to be but that would make the post very long. Let me know if you want some background on this.

 

[Axehead]

I absolutely do, Axehead, and mrjhealth beat me to the Scripture that first came to mind there (the house of Cornelius). We need the Spirit to even come to faith in the first place.

Thank you for adding that 'we need the Spirit to even come to faith in the first place'. It goes without saying then, that newborn babies don't know what is happening with them when they are being baptised. This must be a custom because the Word is clear that one must repent to be saved.

I am glad you believe that the Holy Spirit is given to all men, because most unsaved men are not part of any church at the time of their salvation. Once someone becomes a Christian and begins to walk with God by the Holy Spirit they are a member of the Church, are they not? Since they are member of the Body of Christ and joined to the Lord by His Spirit, they are a member of His Church which is synonymous with the Body of Christ.

Do you believe the verse,

Matt 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Do you have any problem with those who have the Holy Spirit taking exception to all the Catholic customs/culture and not agreeing with them or wanting to be a part of the Catholic Church because in their mind these traditions nullify the Word of God? You do allow freedom of conscience and freedom to follow and worship God as one feels they are being led to by the Holy Spirit, don't you?

Axehead

 

[bosco]

Well, baptism itself contains saving grace, according to the promises of Scripture. Faith is still necessary; but in such cases the child is being given grace by the Lord through the sacrament, and hopefully will be instructed in the ways of grace by their Christian parents as they grow. Their own personal acceptance of this as they do grow is still necessary. It is a valid (and to me, common sense) practice to baptize infants as a result. In a sense it truly is a custom to baptize infants, but that baptism would impart saving grace to an infant is a doctrine.

I do agree that Christ is present to those gathered in His name; but the operations of the Spirit are manifold. I don't agree that those who simply accept Christ without baptism are members of His Body, because Scripture says the opposite-- that we are baptized into Him. This is why Peter baptizes Cornelius & his household after the Spirit comes upon them, or why the eunuch asks Philip for baptism instead of simply asking if Christ would accept him. This certainly does not mean, however, that people cannot receive the Spirit apart from baptism or accept Christ as Savior; but these do not represent the fullness of belonging to Christ, according to Scripture.

I certainly agree with the freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and freedom to disagree as you described it. I would argue that certainly one is free to disagree with Catholic customs and 'small t' traditions-- many of the canonized Saints of the Church have done so, in fact; and Catholic teaching would agree will all of your points to that effect. I would disagree that Catholic doctrine nullifies the Word of God, but I certainly would not (nor would the Catholic Church) question either your commitment to the Gospel, to Christ, or to building faith in Him simply because this is what you believe.

 

[Axehead]

Well, baptism itself contains saving grace, according to the promises of Scripture. Faith is still necessary; but in such cases the child is being given grace by the Lord through the sacrament, and hopefully will be instructed in the ways of grace by their Christian parents as they grow. Their own personal acceptance of this as they do grow is still necessary. It is a valid (and to me, common sense) practice to baptize infants as a result. In a sense it truly is a custom to baptize infants, but that baptism would impart saving grace to an infant is a doctrine.

If it "personal acceptance" is necessary, then what is this "saving grace" that is imparted to infants?

I do agree that Christ is present to those gathered in His name; but the operations of the Spirit are manifold. I don't agree that those who simply accept Christ without baptism are members of His Body, because Scripture says the opposite-- that we are baptized into Him.

Yes, scripture says "Repent and be baptized", in that order. Do you believe baptism is only valid in the Roman Catholic Church and anyone that is baptized outside of it has received and invalid baptism?

This is why Peter baptizes Cornelius & his household after the Spirit comes upon them, or why the eunuch asks Philip for baptism instead of simply asking if Christ would accept him. This certainly does not mean, however, that people cannot receive the Spirit apart from baptism or accept Christ as Savior; but these do not represent the fullness of belonging to Christ, according to Scripture.

Of course! You receive the Spirit first then are baptized in water according to Christ's command.

I certainly agree with the freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and freedom to disagree as you described it. I would argue that certainly one is free to disagree with Catholic customs and 'small t' traditions-- many of the canonized Saints of the Church have done so, in fact; and Catholic teaching would agree will all of your points to that effect. I would disagree that Catholic doctrine nullifies the Word of God, but I certainly would not (nor would the Catholic Church) question either your commitment to the Gospel, to Christ, or to building faith in Him simply because this is what you believe.

That is good. I also believe that many Protestant customs and doctrines nullify the Word of God. Though there are many Protestant denominations there is fellowship with believers in amongst all of them, when they endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. I know there are many and varied schisms in the Catholic church, too and am sure these must be set aside if the different schisms are to have any fellowship with one another.

You have a more generous spirit than many other Catholics I have met who don't believe one can be part of the Body of Christ outside of the RCC or have the 'fullness of the Spirit apart from Catholic communion (transubstantiation). You even imply than one can have the "fullness of the Spirit" if they believe and are a baptized outside of the Catholic Church, although I will await your confirmation on that.

Thanks again,
Axehead

 

[Mungo]

James,

Here are a couple of more responses:

30. Religion of many ignorant and compliant masses (synchronous genuflectors)
On the one hand you complain that Catholics are ignorant of their faith

And then on the other hand you complain that there is a catechism to teach them their faith.
45. Catechism & Missals instead of Bible (canned faith statements) (2Ti_2:15)


The Catechism & Missals are not a replacement for the Bible. They have different functions.


The Bible contains the written word of God.

The Catechism contains the teachings of the Catholic Church.

The Missal contains the prayers and scripture readings for Mass.

What is wrong with that?


(And what does synchronous genuflectors mean in no.30?)




I'm going to be away for a couple of days,

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by these being "CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL CONFLICTS / FALLICIES" and I 'll have a go at answering them when I am back.

23 .Yarmulkes, vestments, backwards collars for clergy

49. Altar boys

52. Holy water, incense, candle lighting

69. Prayer for the dead the sign of the Cross - A.D. 310

71. "Original Sin" (Rom_9:11)

79. "Mother Church"

 

[bosco]

Well, as a Catholic I don't believe anyone can have the fullness of the Spirit outside of the Catholic Church-- but that is based on Scripture. Whether I were Catholic or not, Scripture tells me that there is only one Body of Christ; one faith, one Lord, one baptism; whatever I concluded that Church to be, if it were rooted in Scripture it would have to declare that the fullness of the Spirit is only possible within that church, because that is what the Gospel of Christ tells us. But that does not mean that one does not have Christ whatsoever or that the Spirit does not work among those who are outside, or more loosely affiliated, with that Body. Water baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" joins one to that one Body, that one Church, whether or not one has subscribed to all of its doctrine; however, separated from that doctrine, it is impossible to attain to the Spirit's fullness, by scriptural definition as well as theological. So 'outside' baptisms can be valid, and the Catholic Church teaches this.

As to 'faith' and 'baptism', they are meant to go together, in whichever order they occur. Baptism, according to Paul, puts sin to death in us by joining us to Christ through His death & resurrection. Faith enables us to live this grace.

 

[Episkopos]

Well, as a Catholic I don't believe anyone can have the fullness of the Spirit outside of the Catholic Church-- but that is based on Scripture. Whether I were Catholic or not, Scripture tells me that there is only one Body of Christ; one faith, one Lord, one baptism; whatever I concluded that Church to be, if it were rooted in Scripture it would have to declare that the fullness of the Spirit is only possible within that church, because that is what the Gospel of Christ tells us. But that does not mean that one does not have Christ whatsoever or that the Spirit does not work among those who are outside, or more loosely affiliated, with that Body. Water baptism "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" joins one to that one Body, that one Church, whether or not one has subscribed to all of its doctrine; however, separated from that doctrine, it is impossible to attain to the Spirit's fullness, by scriptural definition as well as theological. So 'outside' baptisms can be valid, and the Catholic Church teaches this.

As to 'faith' and 'baptism', they are meant to go together, in whichever order they occur. Baptism, according to Paul, puts sin to death in us by joining us to Christ through His death & resurrection. Faith enables us to live this grace.

There is only one Mediator between God and men...Jesus Christ. I am an ex-catholic in that I was raised Catholic...but in ignorance of God like 99.9 % of Catholics. Can you say Tradition!!!!

The Lord called me to repentance and baptism in the Spirit in the solitude of my apartment. The RC's have nothing to do with the spiritual walk. That I had to discover on my own.

When the bible speaks of the ecclesia...this is the 2 or 3 gathered saints that draw life from Christ on the Spirit. This is almost unheard of in either the RC system or the protestant system. Where is the faith and consecration to God??? Very rare indeed.

So the true church is a community in the Spirit where all things are held in common. Jesus lives in the midst of these called out ones. THAT is HIS church. Men can do as they like.

 

[bosco]

I'd have to disagree with you there, Episkopos. The term ecclesia was not used in conjunction with the "two or three gathered in my name", but in two other instances by Jesus: as the institution built on Peter that the gates of the netherworld would not stand against, and as the highest judging authority over Christians in dispute (both in Matthew's Gospel). Certainly Paul goes far beyond these, but especially with the broad lengths Paul goes to to expound on the 'Body of Christ', I would find it hard to restrict it to merely the solitude and isolated spirituality which you are describing. I do agree that we need faith and consecration to God among all claiming to be Christian, however!

 

[neophyte]

There is only one Mediator between God and men...Jesus Christ. I am an ex-catholic in that I was raised Catholic...but in ignorance of God like 99.9 % of Catholics. Can you say Tradition!!!!

The Lord called me to repentance and baptism in the Spirit in the solitude of my apartment. The RC's have nothing to do with the spiritual walk. That I had to discover on my own.

When the bible speaks of the ecclesia...this is the 2 or 3 gathered saints that draw life from Christ on the Spirit. This is almost unheard of in either the RC system or the protestant system. Where is the faith and consecration to God??? Very rare indeed.

So the true church is a community in the Spirit where all things are held in common. Jesus lives in the midst of these called out ones. THAT is HIS church. Men can do as they like.

Episkopos, sounds like with your free-will you are following the teachings of mere-men.
Here are the Four Marks OF The True Church and your man-made religious program doesn't fit.
True Christianity was blessed with an Authoritive Teaching Church left to us by Jesus , read these verses Matt. 28: 20 , Luke 10:16, John 20:21, Eph. 4: 3-6, Matt. 16:19, John 17: 21.
The Church is One - Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13
The Church is Holy- Eph. 5:25-27, Rev. 19:7-8
The Church is Catholic - Matt. 28:19-20, Rev. 5:9-10.
The Church is Apostolic Eph. 2:19-20.
I can't find from the Holy Bible any passages or even 'one' verse that describes your man-made religious system [ s ]. Can you ?

 

[Episkopos]

Episkopos, sounds like with your free-will you are following the teachings of mere-men.
Here are the Four Marks OF The True Church and your man-made religious program doesn't fit.
True Christianity was blessed with an Authoritive Teaching Church left to us by Jesus , read these verses Matt. 28: 20 , Luke 10:16, John 20:21, Eph. 4: 3-6, Matt. 16:19, John 17: 21.
The Church is One - Rom. 12:5, 1 Cor. 10:17, 12:13
The Church is Holy- Eph. 5:25-27, Rev. 19:7-8
The Church is Catholic - Matt. 28:19-20, Rev. 5:9-10.
The Church is Apostolic Eph. 2:19-20.
I can't find from the Holy Bible any passages or even 'one' verse that describes your man-made religious system [ s ]. Can you ?

Actually here are the 4 marks of the true church...

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Following religious clerics who wear nice garments is not the same as walking in the power of the Holy Spirit.

I'd have to disagree with you there, Episkopos. The term ecclesia was not used in conjunction with the "two or three gathered in my name", but in two other instances by Jesus: as the institution built on Peter that the gates of the netherworld would not stand against, and as the highest judging authority over Christians in dispute (both in Matthew's Gospel). Certainly Paul goes far beyond these, but especially with the broad lengths Paul goes to to expound on the 'Body of Christ', I would find it hard to restrict it to merely the solitude and isolated spirituality which you are describing. I do agree that we need faith and consecration to God among all claiming to be Christian, however!

The church is called to come out of human institutions...not start them. The RC is a man led religious group...

 

[neophyte]

Episkopos, this is what you wrote:" Actually here are the 4 marks of the true church...

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ."

Please explain your version of Apostles Doctrine ?

 

[Foreigner]

Mungo says:

"Ok, here is another one:

50. Crucifix & scapulas worn as charms or fashion statements. The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, an English monk, in the year 1287 A.D., It is a piece of brown cloth, with the picture of the Virgin and supposed to contain supernatural virtue to protect from all dangers those who wear it on naked skin. This is fetishism.

That Simon Stock invented the scapula is a pious tradition not a historical fact. And according to the Catholic Encyclopaedia he died in 1265, some 22 years before your claim that he invented the scapula.

If anyone is using a scapula as a lucky charm, with the beliefs you give above, then they are wrong. However we need to distinguish between what the Catholic Church officially teaches and sanctions, and what some ignorant and stupid Catholics do.

The most popular scapula is the brown scapula of Our Lady of Mount Carmel (the one associated with Simon Stock).

I found this on Carmelnet.org (quotes in red):

The Scapular finds its roots in the tradition of the Order [that's the Carmelites], which has seen in it a sign of Mary’s motherly protection. It has therefore, a centuries old spiritual meaning approved by Church.
It stands for a commitment to follow Jesus, like Mary, the perfect model of all the disciples of Christ. This commitment finds its origin in baptism by which we become children of God.
It leads us into the community of Carmel, a community of religious men and women, which has existed in the Church for over eight centuries.
It reminds us of the example of the saints of Carmel, with whom we establish a close bond as brothers and sisters to one another.
It is an expression of our belief that we will meet God in eternal life, aided by the intercession and prayers of Mary.

This is important:

The Carmelite Scapular is not:
a magical charm to protect you
an automatic guarantee of salvation
an excuse for not living up to the demands of the Christian life

It is a sign:
which has been approved by the Church for over seven centuries;
which stands for the decision to
- follow Jesus like Mary:
- be open to God and to his will
- be guided by faith, hope, and love
- to pray at all times
- to discover God present in all that happens around us.

(Note that the site tells is that this is The only official text regarding the Brown Scapular written by a joint commission of OCD’s (Discalced Carmelite Order) and OCarm’s (Carmelite Order) in 1999.)"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



-- Apparently, the Vatican didn't get that memo.
As of four years ago when my brother was there the Vatican Gift Shop was selling the Brown Scapular, with this documentation:
(He knows I am no longer a Catholic. He got it for me as sort of a sentimental joke.)

"The Scapular was presented by Our Lady to St. Simon Stock, the Father General of the Carmelite Order, on July 16, 1251."

"Our Lady gave St. Simon a scapular for the Carmelites with the following promise, saying : Receive, My beloved son, this habit of thy order: this shall be to thee and to all Carmelites a privilege, that whosoever dies clothed in this shall never suffer eternal fire .... It shall be a sign of salvation, a protection in danger, and a pledge of peace."

Another important aspect of wearing the Scapular is the Sabbatine Privilege. This concerns a promise made by Our Lady to Pope John XXII. In a papal letter he issued, he recounted a vision that he had had. He stated that the Blessed Virgin had said to him in this vision, concerning those who wear the Brown Scapular: "I, the Mother of Grace, shall descend on the Saturday after their death and whomsoever I shall find in Purgatory, I shall free, so that I may lead them to the holy mountain of life everlasting."

According to Church tradition, there are three conditions necessary to participate in this Privilege and share in the other spiritual benefits of the Scapular: wear the Brown Scapular, observe chastity according to your state in life, and pray the Rosary.

Many popes and saints have strongly recommended wearing, the Brown Scapular to the Catholic Faithful, including St. Robert Bellarmine, Pope John XXII, Pope Pius Xl, and Pope Benedict XV. For example, St. Alphonsus said: "Just as men take pride in having others wear their livery, so the Most Holy Mary is pleased when Her servants wear Her Scapular as a mark that they have dedicated themselves to Her service, and are members of the Family of the Mother of God.

Pope Pius XII went so far as to say: "The Scapular is a practice of piety which by its very simplicity is suited to everyone, and has spread widely among the faithful of Christ to their spiritual profit." In our own times, Pope Paul VI said: "Let the faithful hold in high esteem the practices and devotions to the Blessed Virgin ... the Rosary and the Scapular of Carmel" and in another place referred to the Scapular as: "so highly recommended by our illustrious predecessors."


I found the exact same documentation on catholic-church.org. I gather that is where it came from: http://www.catholic-...el/scapular.htm

It mirrors EXACTLY what I was taught when I wore the Scapular from 7th grade through 12th grade. The one part the Vatican, my Bishop and my priest neglected to mention was :

"In order to receive the spiritual blessings associated with the Scapular, it is necessary to be formally enrolled in the Brown Scapular by either a priest or a lay person who has been given this faculty."


To this day I thank God He didn't allow me to die believing these false teachings.




.

 

[Episkopos]

Episkopos, this is what you wrote:" Actually here are the 4 marks of the true church...

Act 2:42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. ."

Please explain your version of Apostles Doctrine ?

The apostle's doctrine is found in Acts, Romans, 1st and 2nd Corinthians.....etc

 

[aspen]

Well, it is always nice to be able to mock the things you used to believe in, yourself and other Christians still find meaningful, right Foreigner?

Uneducated Catholics lean superstitious; uneducated Protestant/Evangelicals lean deist - what do they have in common?? They are uneducated. If you judge a religious tradition by their uneducated members, you can find all kinds of errors to exploit.

For me, I find it useful to participate and learn from the educated members of the Christian Body. I attend daily Mass and a weekly, Evangelical Bible Study. Just because other Christians like to pick sides and fight about difference doesn't mean I have to.

 

[Foreigner]

Well, it is always nice to be able to mock the things you used to believe in, yourself and other Christians still find meaningful, right Foreigner?

-- You would know. You admit you used to be a Protestant and you don't have to go very far on this board to find an example of you ridiculing them or pretending your are more enlightened.

If you judge a religious tradition by their uneducated members, you can find all kinds of errors to exploit.

-- You do realize that those you are calling "uneducated members," include:
Pope John XXII
Pope Pius XI
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
Pope Benedict XV
St. Alphonsus
St. Robert Bellarmine...

Just because other Christians like to pick sides and fight about difference doesn't mean I have to.

-- Aspen, that is what you do here ALL...THE...TIME.
You are like the Police Inspector in "Casablanca." You are shocked...SHOCKED...to find that gambling is going on here LOL

 

[aspen]

Foreigner said,

-- You would know. You admit you used to be a Protestant and you don't have to go very far on this board to find an example of you ridiculing them or pretending your are more enlightened.

Really? How many threads have I started about Protestants not being Christians?

How many posts have I written about purchasing Protestant items as a joke?

How many times have I tried to exalt my beliefs over others?

Sorry Foreigner, I am no match for your mastery of sarcasm, goading, mocking, and disdain for past beliefs. I not only believe Protestants are part of the Body of Christ and teach the truth of Christ; I still attend a Protestant church and weekly Protestant Bible Study. How about you? Do you still practice any Catholic beliefs (besides the doctrine of the Trinity, the canon of scripture, and the doctrine of the Incarnation)? Or do you just visit the gift store to purchase a few jokes?

-- You do realize that those you are calling "uneducated members," include:
Pope John XXII
Pope Pius XI
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
Pope Benedict XV
St. Alphonsus
St. Robert Bellarmine...

Nice.......

I can see you have taken another one of my charitable posts (that we should look at the real teachings of our traditions and not the fodder used to bash each other) and attempted to make it toxic - nice job! I hear they are hiring propagandists at FOX - you've certainly got the skill set.

-- Aspen, that is what you do here ALL...THE...TIME.
You are like the Police Inspector in "Casablanca." You are shocked...SHOCKED...to find that gambling is going on here LOL

So what side am I on, Foreigner? If it is so obvious - answer the question.

 

[Axehead]

Foreigner said,

-- You would know. You admit you used to be a Protestant and you don't have to go very far on this board to find an example of you ridiculing them or pretending your are more enlightened.

Really? How many threads have I started about Protestants not being Christians?

How many posts have I written about purchasing Protestant items as a joke?

How many times have I tried to exalt my beliefs over others?

Sorry Foreigner, I am no match for your mastery of sarcasm, goading, mocking, and disdain for past beliefs. I not only believe Protestants are part of the Body of Christ and teach the truth of Christ; I still attend a Protestant church and weekly Protestant Bible Study. How about you? Do you still practice any Catholic beliefs (besides the doctrine of the Trinity, the canon of scripture, and the doctrine of the Incarnation)? Or do you just visit the gift store to purchase a few jokes?

-- You do realize that those you are calling "uneducated members," include:
Pope John XXII
Pope Pius XI
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
Pope Benedict XV
St. Alphonsus
St. Robert Bellarmine...

Nice.......

I can see you have taken another one of my charitable posts (that we should look at the real teachings of our traditions and not the fodder used to bash each other) and attempted to make it toxic - nice job! I hear they are hiring propagandists at FOX - you've certainly got the skill set.

-- Aspen, that is what you do here ALL...THE...TIME.
You are like the Police Inspector in "Casablanca." You are shocked...SHOCKED...to find that gambling is going on here LOL

So what side am I on, Foreigner? If it is so obvious - answer the question.

Guys, I said in another thread, whether it is Catholicism or Protestantism, we should compare them both to Scripture. We should stop comparing one Christian religion against another. It is sufficient to compare against God's Word.

Aspen, I don't think Foreigner is standing behind Protestant man-made doctrines and traditions that nullify God's Word.

Axehead

 

[aspen]

Guys, I said in another thread, whether it is Catholicism or Protestantism, we should compare them both to Scripture. We should stop comparing one Christian religion against another. It is sufficient to compare against God's Word.

Aspen, I don't think Foreigner is standing behind Protestant man-made doctrines and traditions that nullify God's Word.

Axehead

Axehead - you are suggesting that we compare all teaching to the Bible Alone. So you are suggesting that we use a Protestant standard (sola Scriptura) as a final authority. How is this going to help us agree?

Seems to me I could just as easily suggest that we compare our understanding of scripture with the teaching of the Vatican and if it doesn't disagree we know it must be true.

See my point? You are suggesting that my problem is that I am not viewing doctrine in a Reformed manner.

As far as Foreigner is concerned, he is able to speak for himself.

 

[Foreigner]

Foreigner said,

-- You would know. You admit you used to be a Protestant and you don't have to go very far on this board to find an example of you ridiculing them or pretending your are more enlightened.

Really? How many threads have I started about Protestants not being Christians? - ASPEN

How many threads have I started about Catholics not being Christians?
I have even quoted my pastor in agreement when he said, "There are people in the pews here today who will not see heaven. There are people in the pews of the Catholic church two blocks away that will."
No, you don't call them non-Christians. You call them wrong and critique their intelligence....or accuse them of violating people's "civil rights."




How many posts have I written about purchasing Protestant items as a joke? - ASPEN

The better question is, how many times have you implied that Protestant positions are a joke.
You simply want to ignore the fact that several Popes held a position that you yourself said classifies them as "uneducated members."
And it was purchased for me as a "sentimental joke." I didn't buy it and didn't ask him to. I wasn't at the Vatican with him.
And since my brother is still a deeply devout Catholic, perhaps you should be criticizing HIM for doing it, no?




How many times have I tried to exalt my beliefs over others? - ASPEN

.............*blink*...............*blink*......................oh PLEASE lol






-- You do realize that those you are calling "uneducated members," include:
Pope John XXII
Pope Pius XI
Pope Pius XII
Pope Paul VI
Pope Benedict XV
St. Alphonsus
St. Robert Bellarmine...

Nice.......

I can see you have taken another one of my charitable posts (that we should look at the real teachings of our traditions and not the fodder used to bash each other) and attempted to make it toxic - nice job! -- ASPEN

It is not my fault that in order for you to be right when you call those who believe this "uneducated members" you have to include several Popes.
You also ignore that there were no insults given by me. Just a listing of names taken directly from the article that you say - if they believe it - they are "uneducated members."
You really have to stretch to call listing names as "bashing."




I hear they are hiring propagandists at FOX - you've certainly got the skill set.

-- I am forced to confess that I am enjoying what appears to be the fact that FOX so deeply and completely gets under your skin.




-- Aspen, that is what you do here ALL...THE...TIME.
You are like the Police Inspector in "Casablanca." You are shocked...SHOCKED...to find that gambling is going on here LOL

So what side am I on, Foreigner? If it is so obvious - answer the question. - ASPEN
So now your stance is that you never "pick sides and fight about difference?"
Are you really going to try to play that one?

 

[aspen]

Foreigner said,

How many threads have I started about Catholics not being Christians?

Ha! You almost had me believing that I accused you of doing this. Hilarious! Apparently, you have resorted to re-framing my post - for the record, I have never posted a general ridicule of Protestants - in fact, I have made positive remarks about most Protestants - my criticism is reserved for the mindset and behavior of Fundamentalists - and it is not limited to Protestants.

I have even quoted my pastor in agreement when he said, "There are people in the pews here today who will not see heaven. There are people in the pews of the Catholic church two blocks away that will."

Albert.....Albert Schweitzer? Is that really you?!

No, you don't call them non-Christians. You call them wrong and critique their intelligence....or accuse them of violating people's "civil rights."

Now you are really digging...lol. Perhaps I should take this conversation to a local speech class for a critique? HAHA

The better question is, how many times have you implied that Protestant positions are a joke.
You simply want to ignore the fact that several Popes held a position that you yourself said classifies them as "uneducated members."
And it was purchased for me as a "sentimental joke." I didn't buy it and didn't ask him to. I wasn't at the Vatican with him.
And since my brother is still a deeply devout Catholic, perhaps you should be criticizing HIM for doing it, no?

The correct answer is 'none'.

Deeply devout huh? Really? Not based on his behavior in this incident.

And you simply want to ignore the fact that I never presented criteria for 'uneducated members'.



.............*blink*...............*blink*......................oh PLEASE lol

Please what? Trust your slanderous remark without the slightest bit of evidence?

It is not my fault that in order for you to be right when you call those who believe this "uneducated members" you have to include several Popes.
You also ignore that there were no insults given by me. Just a listing of names taken directly from the article that you say - if they believe it - they are "uneducated members."
You really have to stretch to call listing names as "bashing."

Hmm....so it isn't insulting to falsely accuse a person of being stupid enough to mistakenly include the leaders of his own church as uneducated? I'd hate to see what our idea of insulting is...

Your right, it is not your fault - you didn't cause me to do anything - you just fabricated the story in your mind. Now why don't you stop your witch trial and simply accept my original statement as it is written - without all the sinister intention you added. Thanks.

-- I am forced to confess that I am enjoying what appears to be the fact that FOX so deeply and completely gets under your skin.

Seems to me that all Americans should be appalled by propaganda masquerading as legitimate news; but I am glad I can elicit some of you smug amusement - I know how it tickles you to feel superior.

So now your stance is that you never "pick sides and fight about difference?"
Are you really going to try to play that one?

Don't you tire of re-framing my questions? Just answer the original question. LOL and you call me a liar - oh the irony....