Sunday, November 22, 2009

Warning Signs that a Lutheran Pastor or Layperson is Headed Toward Rome

53 comments:

CathApol said...

You sound a little worried there... more and more Lutherans must be seeing the Light and coming back across the Tiber.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Former Lutheran

James Swan said...

Scott,

I only provided the link. I didn't write the blog entry. I'm not worried, as salvation is entirely in the hands of the Lord.

CathApol said...

Hi James,
You provided the link on your blog. You sound a bit worred there - or why provide the link? That being said, I agree with you. Salvation is entirely in the hands of the Lord - and may He show more and more the way of Light so they too may come back across the Tiber. Let us heal that rift and not continue to fight to make it wider.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<
Former Lutheran

my3sons said...

CathApol, Then shame on St. Paul for debating with the Jews!

In Christ alone,
my3sons
Former Traditional Roman Catholic

bkaycee said...

Me thinks it absurd that submission to the Pope is considered a step towards salvation but Faith in Christ alone by grace alone is not enough!

Former RC of 27 years
Brian

Alex said...

...but Faith in Christ alone by grace alone is not enough!

Me thinks that this is a bit of selective emphasis fallacious reasoning.

Catholic for 30 years, and parishoner of a parish dedicated to Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite.

Alex
[Also known as Troll, if you were to ask Turretinfan:)]

bkaycee said...

Alex,

Wake me up when Rome recants from the anathemas of Trent that she hurls at the biblical Gopel she denies.

P.S.

Why are former RC's who believe in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, hellbound according to Rome, but Hindus, Moslems, Protestants and every other religion on the planet still have the possibility of salvation.

Alex said...

Alex,

Wake me up when Rome recants from the anathemas of Trent that she hurls at the biblical Gopel she denies.



Your comment is so rampant with misunderstanding and disinformation that I can see why after 27 years you thought it wise to leave the Catholic Church. However, what you left wasn't the Catholic Church, but your caricature of the Catholic faith.

It is our contention that you have rejected the Gospel. Therefore, saying that Trent anathematized the Gospel doesn’t mean much to us when coming from someone who we perceive has already rejected the Gospel. Unless you are of the opinion that an accusation alone is sufficient to substantiate the charge, you are going to have to do more than this. We have reviewed the arguments to the contrary, and have proven them wanting.


P.S.

Why are former RC's who believe in Jesus Christ alone for salvation, hellbound according to Rome, but Hindus, Moslems, Protestants and every other religion on the planet still have the possibility of salvation.


Is this a real question? I know that this perception of Catholic teaching has been corrected here on this blog numerous times before.

Thanks,
Troll

bkaycee said...

Alex,

Explain to me what the Gospel is according to Rome, or at least your understanding of it. Maybe my 12 years of Catholic school catechism was deficient.

B

Rhology said...

I am worried. See the sweat beading on my avatar?

Edward Reiss said...

CathApol,

Why is your first response psychoanalysis?

I hope no other Lutherans follow you in your error of swimming the Tiber. I hope more RCs follow me away from my former blindness under the pope into thelight of the true Gospel unencumbered by the teachings of men proclaimed as dogmas of the church--justified with sophistry and special pleading. In fact, a large proportion of my church is former RCs who have seen the light. Thus, any concern is that our ministers do not follow the error of submission to the pope.

Boy, isn't posturing easy.

Of course, I fully expect that you have a pat answer. I just wanted to point out that your replies have the air of cheap rhetoric about them.

James Swan said...

You provided the link on your blog. You sound a bit worred there - or why provide the link?

It has nothing to do with fear, I assure you. If you go back and read through this blog, you'll note I do comment on the Roman Catholic conversion "experience" from time to time.

I thought the insights about those about to convert were interesting. Quite frankly, people do what they want to do. If someone's heart is set on Romanism (a term you approve of me using), then nothing any of us write or say will really make any difference.

CathApol said...

my3sons,
What has St. Paul debating with Jews got to do with Lutherans crossing the Tiber and coming into full communion with the Church which Jesus Christ founded? It sounds to me that you have a total non sequitur here.

As for you signing that you're a former Traditional Roman Catholic, what does that mean? You gave up the Real Presence for a symbolic presence? At any rate, I typically don't sign "Former Lutheran" - but that is appropriate for the thread which James started.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

CathApol said...

>>sw: You provided the link on
>> your blog. You sound a bit
>> worred there - or why provide
>> the link?

>
> JS: It has nothing to do with
> fear, I assure you.

sw: That doesn't change what I said, it still "appears" that way. I'm OK with you giving off such appearances. Carry on.

> JS: If you go back and read
> through this blog, you'll note I
> do comment on the Roman Catholic
> conversion "experience" from
> time to time.

sw: Nice.

> JS: I thought the insights about
> those about to convert were
> interesting.

sw: OK.

> JS: Quite frankly, people do
> what they want to do.

sw: Yes, it's call Free Will. People are not mind-controlled robots - well, some are not.

> JS: If someone's heart is set on
> Romanism (a term you approve of
> me using),

sw: I have never "approved" of you using "Romanism." "Romanism" is an ignorant slur against a Christian culture you abhor and resort to bigoted comments. However, if you feel the need to express yourself in such derogatory and bigoted terms, while I do not "approve," I do have some understanding of your usage of such terms and don't let it bother me as much as it bothers others. One day, I hope you see the folly of such and move on to more mature argumentation. (And to be clear here, I'm not calling you names - only that your use of such terms which you KNOW elicit an emotional response from some is not mature argumentation).

> JS: then nothing any of us write
> or say will really make any
> difference.

sw: Perhaps not, but then again you're likely goal is not to reach the one committed in their faith, but to reach those still on the fringe who may be reading along and have said little or nothing along the way.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

resort to bigoted comments

Ah, accusations of bigotry. The last refuge of the postmodern, PC culture. Just couldn't be that James Swan has actually studied Romanism to a significant extent and come to a particular conclusion. Nnnnnoooooo, it MUST be prejudicial. B/c Scott Windsor says so.

CathApol said...

Alan,
Studying of the Catholic Church does not make it valid to use such comments. I only made mention of the "appearance" Mr. Swan was giving, and then commented on his statement where he asserted I gave him my approval over that term he used (which I did not).

I've said enough on this, you can have the last word if you choose to. I'm not going to continue in this mud.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Not a fan of mud of your own making, eh?

CathApol said...

OK, I said you could have the last word, but when you go into bearing false witness (lying) I need to clarify, I didn't make this "mud" - I believe you'll find that Mr. Swan made the first entry on the blog, I added what it "appeared" to be. Mr. Swan also chose to say I "approved" of his use of "Romanist" - which I do not. I may tolerate it, I may have some empathy for him using it but I do not "approve" it. So, the record shows that Mr. Swan first posted the link to the article about Lutherans becoming Catholics; Mr. Swan first used the term "Romanist" and "Rho" joined him in a like term - then I point this out and I am the one who made the mud?

I also see that I overlooked some points:

bkaycee wrote:
> Why are former RC's who believe
> in Jesus Christ alone for
> salvation, hellbound according
> to Rome, but Hindus, Moslems,
> Protestants and every other
> religion on the planet still
> have the possibility of
> salvation.


sw: First off, God alone will be the Judge of every creature - whether they were Catholic and walked away or never heard of the Catholic Church - God will judge their heart as only He can do.

sw: Secondly, 2 Peter 2:21 explains that it is better to have never heard the Gospel than to have heard it and walked away and/or stand in open and defiant rejection of it.

bkaycee also said:
> Explain to me what the Gospel is
> according to Rome, or at least
> your understanding of it.


sw: We are to know, love and serve God in this world so that we might be happy with Him in the next. Along the theme of this thread, can you know, love and serve Him in a "church" which stands in steadfast opposition to the One He built?

bkaycee continues:
> Maybe my 12 years of Catholic
> school catechism was deficient.


sw: Sadly, this may very well be the case. I have found the catechetical education of many Catholics has been quite lacking.

Edward said:
CathApol,


sw: You may call me Scott.

> ER: Why is your first
> response psychoanalysis?


sw: It wasn't. My first response was an observation of appearances.


> ER: I hope no other Lutherans
> follow you in your error of
> swimming the Tiber. I hope more
> RCs follow me away from my
> former blindness under the pope
> into thelight of the true Gospel
> unencumbered by the teachings of
> men proclaimed as dogmas of the
> church--justified with sophistry
> and special pleading. In fact, a
> large proportion of my church is
> former RCs who have seen the
> light. Thus, any concern is that
> our ministers do not follow the
> error of submission to the pope.


sw: You are entitled to your hopes, my hope is that you realize one day that you were wrong to leave behind the Real Presence for symbolism.

> ER: Boy, isn't posturing easy.

sw: Again, I merely made some observations. Make of those what you will.


> ER: Of course, I fully expect
> that you have a pat answer.


sw: My answers come from the heart.


> ER: I just wanted to point out
> that your replies have the air
> of cheap rhetoric about them.


sw: That is your observation, I stand by mine. I remind you, I did not start this conversation about Lutherans heading toward Rome.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

bkaycee said...

bkaycee also said:
> Explain to me what the Gospel is
> according to Rome, or at least
> your understanding of it.

sw: We are to know, love and serve God in this world so that we might be happy with Him in the next.


A very non offensive "gospel" that most of the worlds monotheistic religions should agree with. Not sure I see "good news" in that gospel.


SW said
Along the theme of this thread, can you know, love and serve Him in a "church" which stands in steadfast opposition to the One He built?


I have with a certainty been placed into the "Church" that Jesus built. I have His written word, transcribed by His Apostles, both powerfully authenticated by God. I have His promised Holy Spirit given to those who believe in Him. I believe everything the original disciples were taught.

The mystical body, "The Church" is pure and has not one tare. The Roman "Church" has many times been led by evil reprobates. Were Catholics obligated to follow them?

Why should I believe non biblical doctrines the original disciples were not required to believe.

Rhology said...

Along the theme of this thread, can you know, love and serve Him in a "church" which stands in steadfast opposition to the One He built?

Given that Rome regards us as "separated brethren", the answer is clearly Yes, on the Roman position.
Mr Windsor should be careful not to ask the wrong question - his own church will betray him from time to time.

Edward Reiss said...

Scott,

"You are entitled to your hopes, my hope is that you realize one day that you were wrong to leave behind the Real Presence for symbolism.

> ER: Boy, isn't posturing easy.

sw: Again, I merely made some observations. Make of those what you will."

Of course I can make of it what I will. However, and I can still call it posturing. Here is another example:

"We are to know, love and serve God in this world so that we might be happy with Him in the next. Along the theme of this thread, can you know, love and serve Him in a "church" which stands in steadfast opposition to the One He built?"

Well, since your church is not the one he built, since your church anathematized the Gospel, when will you be leaving and joining the Church he built?

See? It is nothing but an assertion pretending to be an argument. Embedded in that statement is that the RCC is the church Christ built. The evidence for this is nothing but arguments from authority.

And the same shtick was in your first post. You merely assume your POV to be true. Well, it is not, and it is rather tirvial to show it not to be the Church. The problem you have is that you are so busy pretending that the issue is settled that you cannot even hear what others say. That is what is happening between you and bkaycee. (Who is somewhat guilty, but seems in context to be responding in kind to the proof-by-assertion argument you and other RC apologists like to use). And, if all yo ucan do is play rhetorical games by poretending the issue is settled, what kind of apologetics is that?

regarding the alleged "lie":

"So, the record shows that Mr. Swan first posted the link to the article about Lutherans becoming Catholics; Mr. Swan first used the term "Romanist" and "Rho" joined him in a like term - then I point this out and I am the one who made the mud? "

The record also shows that you are the first poster, and that your first post was snarky--partly for the reasons I have already outlined. This makes it a "lie" for someone to say you are making mud, when you reply to a thread about Lutherans going across the Tiber with a snark?

Look, if you want to take your marbles and go home that is OK. But jumping back in because of a your tendentious use of the word "lying" shows it to be the empty posturing I pointed out earlier.

CathApol said...

Mr. Reiss,
The record shows that Mr. Swan published the blog entry, my "comment" was the first "comment" in RESPONSE to his blog entry. If you want to believe I started it, sobeit.

I have not picked up my marbles. I was willing to allow Alan to have "the last word," but when that "word" was a lie, I felt the need to set the record straight. The only way to change this FACT would be to delete the blog entry and the comments which ensued.

CathApol said...

Oh, and deleting this wouldn't "change" anything, it would only be hiding the facts...

Alex said...

See? It is nothing but an assertion pretending to be an argument. Embedded in that statement is that the RCC is the church Christ built. The evidence for this is nothing but arguments from authority.

What is your argument that you are following the true Church established by Christ? What is the evidence which you invoke?

Edward Reiss said...

"The record shows that Mr. Swan published the blog entry, my "comment" was the first "comment" in RESPONSE to his blog entry. If you want to believe I started it, sobeit."

When I said "poster" I meant your comment, which as a brute fact is simply true--you posted the first comment. It is also true that a comment can be called a post. Now, you could have asked for a clarification, but instead you went for the cheap rhetorical game of one upsmanship.

So, here are the facts, which are so plain they should be clear even to a RC apologist:

1) Your first post was snide, and full of bogus psychoanalysis and merely assumed as a fact that Rome is the true Church.

2) Your follow up posts were attempts to keep what you seem to believe is a "fact"--the mental state of Mr. Swan--at center stage along with a reassertion of the RCC as "true" Church without any argument put forth.

You then began to complain about "mud" when you decided to drop out of the conversation--and when someone pointed out that you were responsible for the "mud" this became a "lie", because apparently if Mr. Swan posts something to which you reply, only he, and not you, are responsible for how "muddy" things get.

You are free to make such claims and argue in nay way you want, and I am free to point out how lame your posts--I mean comments--are here; they are full argument by vigorous assumption and silly psychoanalysis.

L P said...

CathApol,

You said
Scott<<<
Former Lutheran


LPC
Ex- RC now Lutheran

my3sons said...

CathApol, I did not give up the Real Presence of Christ in the Euchrist. My family and I now attend a LCMS Church which does believe in the Real Presence.

In Christ alone,
my3sons

P.S.-FYI, from 2002-2008, I went to Mass at a Traditional Latin parish run by the FSSP.

James Swan said...

That doesn't change what I said, it still "appears" that way

Scott, I'm not really worried how things "appear" to you. You are entitled to your own reality.

I have never "approved" of you using "Romanism." "Romanism" is an ignorant slur against a Christian culture you abhor and resort to bigoted comments.

Do you ever use either the words, "Calvinist" or "Calvinism"?

Rhology said...

Do you ever use either the words, "Calvinist" or "Calvinism"?

I do, but only as the vilest of curse words.

Edward Reiss said...

"What is your argument that you are following the true Church established by Christ? What is the evidence which you invoke?"

The point isn't whether I, or Scott, have an argument to prove anything. The point is that to just assume one's church is the church and go on from that to extrapolate that therefore other church's are false is a rather cheap argument. We already know that you and Scott believe the RCC is "the" Church. Since we don't buy that, merely assuming it and then in effect demanding submission to this incandescent fact is a rather poor way of going about apologetics. In fact, it is not an apologia at alll but merely an argument by assertion. This can be shown because one cam merely insert another Church and make the same exact argument. For example:

"You sound a little worried there... more and more [Roman Catholics] must be seeing the Light and coming back across the [the Bosphorus]."

"You sound a little worried there... more and more [Orthodox] must be seeing the Light and coming [to Wittenberg]."

Etc. Etc. In fact, one could easily write a Python script and generate hundreds of examples.

A rule of thumb I try and follow is that an argument from authority is useless unless the other guy believes in the authority, too. Since we don;t believe e.g. the Majesterium has the authority you say it does, it doesn't matter how many times you say it does and act like it does--we don't buy it any more than you buy into EO condemnations of the Filioque because they are the "true" Church.

Alex said...

I'm going to ask the question again, Edward, what is your argument that you are following the true Church established by Christ? What is the evidence which you invoke?

Thanks,
Troll

Alex said...

P.S.-FYI, from 2002-2008, I went to Mass at a Traditional Latin parish run by the FSSP.

What parish?

Edward Reiss said...

"I'm going to ask the question again, Edward, what is your argument that you are following the true Church established by Christ? What is the evidence which you invoke?"

We preach what the Apostles preached, as found in the Prophetic and Apostolic writings.

But that is the whole egg, isn't it? :-)

However, I don't go around and act like such a statement is the *starting point* for discussion.

Alex said...

We preach what the Apostles preached, as found in the Prophetic and Apostolic writings.

Actually, we preach what the Apostles preached, practiced, and taught in what they wrote and delivered orally.

Now what?

It is a matter of historical record that your theologically minded forefathers rebelled against the Catholic communion, and rejected the teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches.

Thanks,
Troll

Alex said...

However, I don't go around and act like such a statement is the *starting point* for discussion.

Discussions have been ongoing here for quite a long time. Authority does seem to be a issue which needs to be addressed.

bkaycee said...

Alex said
Actually, we preach what the Apostles preached, practiced, and taught in what they wrote and delivered orally.

Now what?


God authenticated the Apostles and their message with miracles, so we know that the scriptures are trustworthy.

We have no such assurance that a purported "oral tradition" even exists.

Isn't it reasonable that this oral tradition should consist of something other than just a naked assertion that it exists?

Is there an infallible list of "Tradition"?

Did God authenticate it via miracles?

Edward Reiss said...

"It is a matter of historical record that your theologically minded forefathers rebelled against the Catholic communion, and rejected the teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches."

No it is not a "matter of historical record" but of schism polemics. Basically, we don't think we "invented" anything but that we restored Christ and the Gospel to the center as opposed to man-made doctrines--so claims that just state e.g. "your forefathers invented a false religion" is not really an argument but, as I said, "proof" by vigorous assertion and as such not at all convincing and rather silly. How do I know this is true? I could say the same about the RCC, and in fact we do. Even better though is that the EOC *says the same about the RCC*--so you don't get to just include them as in "teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches" because you guys have a schism lasting almost 1000 years and are not in fellowship.

How is that for a "historical record"? :-)

As a corollary, the EOs will use the same arguments against you which you do against prots--Apostolic Succession (you don't have it any more because Rome left the One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church), doctrinal innovation (papal authority, Immaculate Conception, created grace--the list goes on and on...), constant divisions (the pope was the first protestant and protestant churches are the abusive children of an abusive parent....). They say it is a matter of historical record, too.

So, when will you be converting to EOdoxy, since it is quite obvious the historical record shows they are the Church.

CathApol said...

9:13 PM, November 24, 2009
Blogger Edward Reiss said...
>> sw: The record shows that Mr. Swan published
>> the blog entry, my "comment" was the first
>> "comment" in RESPONSE to his blog entry. If
>> you want to believe I started it, sobeit."
>
> ER: When I said "poster" I meant your comment,
> which as a brute fact is simply true--you
> posted the first comment. It is also true that
> a comment can be called a post. Now, you could
> have asked for a clarification, but instead
> you went for the cheap rhetorical game of one
> upsmanship.

sw: Listen Ed, I made an OBSERVATION of what
Mr. Swan's posting of that blog entry APPEARED
to be. At that point he could have, and since
has, cleared up his intention. He claims it
was simply of interest to him regarding Lutherans
conversion experiences, here are his words again:
"I thought the insights about those about to
convert were interesting."
I made no counter
claim to what he thought was interesting, I find
similar things interesting as well.

> ER: So, here are the facts, which are so plain
> they should be clear even to a RC apologist:

sw: I take this moment to point out that you have
reduced yourself to insulting ad hominem with the
"even to a RC apologist" comment.

> ER: 1) Your first post was snide, and full of
> bogus psychoanalysis and merely assumed as a
> fact that Rome is the true Church.

sw: My first post was ONE SENTENCE! Here it is
again:
You sound a little worried there... more and
more Lutherans must be seeing the Light and coming
back across the Tiber.

Then I signed it as "Former Lutheran." I simply
made an observation that it appeared Mr. Swan was
a bit worried. The rest you should EXPECT from
my perspective! If I didn't believe these former
Lutherans, as myself, were "seeing the Light" then
I would still BE a Lutheran! There's no
psychoanalysis going on there, just an expression
of my Faith. I fully expect you, and most here,
to have an opposing view to mine - I'm not so
sure why you, knowing somewhat who I am, are
making so much of all this.

(breaking here)

CathApol said...

(continued from previous)

> ER: 2) Your follow up posts were attempts to
> keep what you seem to believe is a "fact"--the
> mental state of Mr. Swan--at center stage along
> with a reassertion of the RCC as "true" Church
> without any argument put forth.

sw: 1) I wasn't making an argument, only an
observation.

sw: 2) I wasn't making a psycho-analysis of Mr.
Swan's mental state. Again, it was an observation
and Mr. Swan cleared up his "interest" in such
conversion stories. I'm really OK with how he
explained it. It seems you and others have made
more of this than Mr. Swan himself made.

> ER: You then began to complain about "mud" when
> you decided to drop out of the conversation--and
> when someone pointed out that you were responsible
> for the "mud" this became a "lie", because
> apparently if Mr. Swan posts something to which
> you reply, only he, and not you, are responsible
> for how "muddy" things get.

sw: Actually, Mr. Swan was not the one throwing
most of the mud. I was willing to let Alan have
the "last word" until he posted the false statement
that I had started this, when clearly Mr. Swan
originated the thread which I merely RESPONDED to
with an OBSERVATION. Now, it seems, Mr. Swan is
doing the smart thing- and staying out of the
mud-hole and letting others do the "dirty work"
for him. Mr. Swan offers only one other comment
which I will get to in just a bit.

> ER: You are free to make such claims and argue in
> nay way you want, and I am free to point out how
> lame your posts--I mean comments--are here; they
> are full argument by vigorous assumption and silly
> psychoanalysis.

sw: Ed, you are free to judge me as you wish. It
also seems to be a bit of a pet answer around here
to accuse people of psychoanalysis, as if any time
someone makes any sort of judgment or observation,
oooohhhh, that's psychoanalysis and that when you
make that assertion that you've somehow invalidated
what was "observed." Talk about "lame!"

(breaking here)

CathApol said...

(continued from previous)

9:19 PM, November 24, 2009
Blogger L P said...

> LP: CathApol,
> You said
>> Scott<<<
>> Former Lutheran
>
> LPC
> Ex- RC now Lutheran

sw: Yes, I am aware of a few former Catholics who
have become Lutherans, for one reason or another.
Now I am aware of another, but not about why you
left the Catholic Faith.

10:42 PM, November 24, 2009
Blogger my3sons said...

> m3: CathApol, I did not give up the Real Presence
> of Christ in the Euchrist. My family and I now
> attend a LCMS Church which does believe in the
> Real Presence.

sw: I grew up in LCMS. Lutheran "belief" in the
Real Presence is quite close, but not quite there
with the Catholic belief. Also, the fact that a
Lutheran pastor has not the faculties to consecrate
bread and wine into the Real Presence kind of gets
in the way of the "reality."

> In Christ alone,
> my3sons
> P.S.-FYI, from 2002-2008, I went to Mass at a
> Traditional Latin parish run by the FSSP.

sw: Interesting.


(breaking here)

CathApol said...

(continued from previous)
1:26 AM, November 25, 2009
Blogger James Swan said...

>> sw: That doesn't change what I said, it still
>> "appears" that way
>
> JS: Scott, I'm not really worried how things
> "appear" to you.

sw: Nor did I state you were worried about how things
appear to me. I merely stated a personal observation
and you already clarified that you simply have an
interest in reading conversion stories of former
Lutherans to Catholicism - and I said I was OK with
that. Others here are blowing it out of proportion.

> JS: You are entitled to your own reality.

sw: Hmmm, was that a psychoanalysis of my grasp on
reality? Touche' mon ami?! :-)

>> sw: I have never "approved" of you using "Romanism."
>> "Romanism" is an ignorant slur against a Christian
>> culture you abhor and resort to bigoted comments.
>
> sw: Do you ever use either the words, "Calvinist"
> or "Calvinism"?

sw: Yes, and so do most Calvinists. I have NEVER
been told these terms were bigoted slurs against
those who follow the teachings of Calvin. Those
words are no different than "Lutheran" for those
who follow the teachings of Luther. I also use
"Catholicism"

6:01 AM, November 25, 2009
Blogger Rhology said...

>> JS: Do you ever use either the words,
>> "Calvinist" or "Calvinism"?
>
> AR: I do, but only as the vilest of curse words.

sw: Only? Well, then you would stand alone among
virtually all of those with whom I have dealt with
in apologetics who willingly and openly embrace
the terms "Calvinist" and "Calvinism" and believe
in Calvin's TULIP. Now, I suspect you wrote that
in haste and would like to retract it - will you
be doing so? If not, then I would expect to see
you admonishing Mr. Swan for his use of these
terms quite often and/or I would expect to see
others who embrace Calvin's teachings to correct
you on this matter. Well, I don't know if I
really "expect" it around here, it seems like
the "good-ol' boys" would not correct each other,
at least not in public. I guess I'd be more
surprized than expecting it. Still, if they
correct you in private, you should make a public
retraction. If you REALLY see these terms as
"the vilest of curse words" - then I will try to
keep that in mind in my dialogs with you and
refrain from using them.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

Well, then you would stand alone among virtually all of those with whom I have dealt with in apologetics who willingly and openly embrace the terms "Calvinist" and "Calvinism" and believe in Calvin's TULIP.

Your rampant emotions are clouding your irony detector.

CathApol said...

> AR: Your rampant emotions are
clouding your irony detector.


sw: A bit of "psychoanalysis" going on there Alan?

sw: The point of THAT comment was that Calvinist and Calvinism are commonly used and accepted terms. You said you ONLY use them as, and I quote, "the vilest of curse words." If that is true, then you're accusing many of your cohorts of such usage. You appear to be comparing that to yours (and others) use of "Romanist," "Romish" or "Romanism" - which are NOT commonly accepted terms among Catholics and Catholicism, or even Roman Catholicism if you prefer. The whole point of the responses to that other thread was to draw your attention to the fact that when you use those terms they ARE offensive to some. That being said, most Catholics who are involved in apologetics can typically just consider the source and not be so offended, I, for one, do not take offense to casual usage - though if someone appears to be being directly rude and/or bigoted then I'm not afraid to point that out to them and hopefully help them to post with more Christian compassion in the future. Thus far such attempts seem to only fuel the bigotry among those who were caught using such terms. They entrench and get all defensive and rather than act more like a Christian - they continue in obstinacy demonstrating a chasm between them and Christian charity. In the end it is they who truly look bad to the unbiased reader - but again it is not my goal to make you or others look bad - I would MUCH rather see you change and demonstrate that which would be expected of fellow Christians.

Now, all THAT being said, do you REALLY take "Calvinist" and "Calvinism" to be "the vilest of curse words?" Again, if so, I have already offered to avoid such usage in dealing with you.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Rhology said...

::shaking my head::

No, those are not really vile curse words to me. It was a joke.

And no, no psychoanalysis here. You are clearly very emotional, you have clearly overreacted, and you just as clearly missed the obvious irony.

Alex said...

No it is not a "matter of historical record" but of schism polemics. Basically, we don't think we "invented" anything but that we restored Christ and the Gospel to the center as opposed to man-made doctrines

There was the Church, along with the doctrines she professed, which certain members rejected for what they perceived to be the true faith...some 1500 years after. You say that the Reformers restored the Gospel, we say that they rejected the Gospel. It is historical fact that the Catholic communion was under the pope, except for the East, but even there the liturgies were kept intact, and their beliefs would never be confused with Protestantism. Granted, you might be one of the extremists who think that there was a remnant of believers, some proto-Lutherans who continued the true faith from the time of the Apostles.

e.g. "your forefathers invented a false religion" is not really an argument but, as I said, "proof" by vigorous assertion and as such not at all convincing and rather silly.

Who are you quoting? I said was: "It is a matter of historical record that your theologically minded forefathers rebelled against the Catholic communion, and rejected the teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches."

Which they did, and you implicitly recognized this in your statement saying, "...we restored Christ and the Gospel..."

Even better though is that the EOC *says the same about the RCC*--so you don't get to just include them as in "teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches" because you guys have a schism lasting almost 1000 years and are not in fellowship.

I've attended Orthodox Liturgies. I've read Orthodox material discussing their beliefs. I know Orthodoxy to an adequate degree. Your pseudo-church's novel theology would never be confused with the Orthodox. Therefore, I can say that, "rejected the teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches."

Apostolic Succession (you don't have it any more because Rome left the One Holy catholic and Apostolic Church)

You say this as if there were some uniform belief amongst the various Orthodox community concerning this. There is not. Since you are the one making this claim, can you prove it? If I were to show information disputing this claim, would you accept that you were wrong?

Thanks,
Troll

Alex said...

God authenticated the Apostles and their message with miracles, so we know that the scriptures are trustworthy.

How do you know about the miracles? Were you there? Did you see them?

We have no such assurance that a purported "oral tradition" even exists.

That's funny because Paul mentioned them.

Isn't it reasonable that this oral tradition should consist of something other than just a naked assertion that it exists?

Paul has said so, and so has both the East and Western Churches prior to the time of the Reformers.

Thanks,
Troll

CathApol said...

Alan wrote:
::shaking my head::

No, those are not really vile curse words to me. It was a joke.

And no, no psychoanalysis here. You are clearly very emotional, you have clearly overreacted, and you just as clearly missed the obvious irony.


sw: Alan,
You must accept the fact that this is a written only medium and words mean things. When you explicitly state those words are "the vilest of curse words" - without any little smiley faces or indication you're "joking" - how is one to know? I can't see the smile on your face through my monitor! I therefore NOW accept your explanation and accept that you were indeed "joking."

sw: I find it a bit ironic that you CLAIM you're not psychoanalyzing - yet in the same context you say, "You are clearly very emotional, you have clearly overreacted," which sure sounds like you're analyzing me! I assure you, my response was not emotional - I simply responded to the words you posted as they were posted. I apologize if I am coming off as "emotional," for again I assure you I am not. I only continued this thread because something you wrote was not really true and then others jumped in and in sort of snow-balled. I was really OK with Mr. Swan's explanation regarding his interest in Lutherans converting to Catholicism. This topic then became a bit more convoluted (as many topics do) into discussion psychoanalysis, Romanist, bigotry, Catholics who converted to Lutheranism, Traditional Catholics who converted to Lutheranism, Calvinism, Calvinist and your failed attempt at humor... as for me "missing the obvious irony," well, in your mind it may have been obvious and I did see what you may have been trying to say, but if I had assumed such I'm sure it would have come back to bite me so I waited for your clarification, and I thank you for doing so.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Edward Reiss said...

"There was the Church, along with the doctrines she professed, which certain members rejected for what they perceived to be the true faith...some 1500 years after."

No, that is just RC propaganda. See pope St. Clement of Rome in his first Epistle. See St. Ambrose of Milan. There are quite a few examples, and it is a big mistake for you to pretend the RCC was united on the issue of justification before the Reformation. It simply isn't so, your assumption is hopelessly naive.

"I've attended Orthodox Liturgies. I've read Orthodox material discussing their beliefs. I know Orthodoxy to an adequate degree. Your pseudo-church's novel theology would never be confused with the Orthodox. Therefore, I can say that, "rejected the teachings of both the Western and Eastern churches."


Blah blah blah pseudo church blah blah. :-D

BTW, RC theology would "never be confused" with EOdoxy either. They believe grace is an uncreated energy of God, while yo ubelieve that it is a created accident infused into our nature.

Also, "some" Orthodox deny the vicarious atonement.

Which brings us back to different authorities trying to assert their authority. You cannot formulate an argument for your authority without the EOC immediately hijacking it. It doesn't matter if there is some commonality or of some feel an affinity with RCism--the same can be said of prots.

Good luck with that.

CathApol said...

Since Mr. Swan and I, I believe, are OK with his interest in Lutherans converting to Catholicism and that truly is the valid topic of this thread, I don't see the need to continue discussing the several side-issues which have come up. I have posted a general response to the "Romanism" terminology on my blog. Feel free to continue that topic as validly on-topic over there.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/11/romanism-and-bigotry.html

bkaycee said...

bkaycee said
God authenticated the Apostles and their message with miracles, so we know that the scriptures are trustworthy.

Alex said
How do you know about the miracles? Were you there? Did you see them?

I assume you were not there either but believe. An evasive non answer.

bkaycee said We have no such assurance that a purported "oral tradition" even exists.

Alex said That's funny because Paul mentioned them.


Ok, what "traditions" is he talking about, specifically? Purgatory? Mary as another mediator?

L P said...

CathApol

sw: Yes, I am aware of a few former Catholics who
have become Lutherans, for one reason or another.
Now I am aware of another, but not about why you
left the Catholic Faith.


I have been away now for more than 30 years.

If you must know, I left because of the Gospel - that man is saved by grace alone through faith alone in the finished work of Christ alone testified by the Scriptures alone.

Christ became sufficient for me.

BTW as a colonized EX-RC kid, as a child I was reared in the Baltimore Cathecism. I heard the mass in Latin (pre-Vatican II), so I think I know and have experienced a bit of hard core Catholicism in my younger years. I was zealous proud child of Mother Church. As a teenager, I even reverted back my Fundamentalist Baptists friends to worship Mary (of which I myself did not even do ).

--

Lastly all this business of ONE TRUE CHURCH, I have heard before and is a constant theme whenever I interact with cultists. They make the same argument as RC does.

RC plays fast and loose with the word "Church" and the word "Catholic". The equivocation of the use of the term "Church" is something cultists do which is similar to the way RC uses the word.

Unfortunatly CathApol, your work as fides defensor for Mother Church carries no sanction. The only one who dares speak for Rome is the Magisterium. So all the things you speak about Mother Church etc. etc. we cannot confirm if they are authentic interpretation of the Magisterium's teachings.

Catholic Apoligetics is an attempt to mimic Evangelical Apologetics but it is a shot in the foot because the issue is Authority and these Catholic Apologetic ministries in the final analysis carry no authoritative word, simply because they are not part of the official Magisterium.

It is a nice exercise to interact with Catholic Apologists but at the end of the day, one cannot be sure that they have represented the Magisterium so well. The enterprise is at the end of the day, trivial.


LPC

CathApol said...

LP,
Thanks for sharing. Since this thread is not really about your conversion, and issues you had with Catholicism, would you be opposed to me responding on my blog with a thread dedicated to this discussion? If not, I will understand. There are issues I'd like to address, but this thread has drifted far enough from the actual topic. Perhaps one of the authors of this blog would start a new post on this subject and we could continue there?

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Edward Reiss said...

This is for Scott's benefit:

"Before leaving Rome, Benedict said the exodus of Catholics for evangelical Protestant churches in Latin America was 'our biggest worry.'

But he said the spread of Protestantism shows a "thirst for God" in the region, and that he intends to lay down a strategy to answer that call when he meets with bishops from throughout Latin America in a once-a-decade meeting in the shrine city of Aparecida near Sao Paulo.

'We have to become more dynamic," he said. Evangelical churches, which the Vatican considers "sects," have attracted millions of Latin American Catholics in recent years."

The pope sounds a little worried that RCs in Latin America are going prot.

How does this make hi facile response look now? I suspect like the cheap rhetorical trick it is.

Link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-05-09-pope-brazil_N.htm