tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post3592147766813947201..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Michael Liccione on The Authority QuestionJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25008186358299333582010-09-15T12:35:27.903-04:002010-09-15T12:35:27.903-04:00JAE,
surprised me there!
Thank you for your hone...JAE,<br /><br />surprised me there!<br /><br />Thank you for your honest reply!<br /><br />I have nothing further unless you might want to discuss something further?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38621394395284297322010-09-15T08:46:22.208-04:002010-09-15T08:46:22.208-04:00Jae: "You still didn't get the crucial p...<b>Jae</b>: <i>"You still didn't get the crucial point."</i><br /><br />Whatever "point" you were trying to establish is relatively worthless in comparison to the point that the Catholic Church DID ERR in teaching doctrine in matters of faith and morals.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-22579393944791431192010-09-15T03:37:58.414-04:002010-09-15T03:37:58.414-04:00Constantine said...Does anybody else get the "...<i>Constantine said...Does anybody else get the "URL Too Large" error when trying to post here?</i><br /><br />I frequently get that and other error messages. But once the comments page goes away, it does appear as if the comments ends up being posted. We need to follow-up with Blogger to find out what's going on with this error, the missing comments etc. We just have not had the time to systematically follow up with that.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52789526228949372962010-09-15T01:12:52.051-04:002010-09-15T01:12:52.051-04:00There is one post I do want to comment on before I...There is one post I do want to comment on before I work on a group one. If I come across as frankly cross, I apologize but I have done my best to tone this down. I also apologize for this being off subject, but I feel justified in doing so since Natamllc has chosen to judge me and my heart.<br /><br />Natamllc, you wrote: In light of John Lollard's indicting and painfully real words above about the "pornocracy" existent within the Magisterium and the Roman Catholic Church Priesthood which it has become and in fact, is, even still in some regards, in part, I will off out a brave coward and heretic then!<br /><br />I respond: Mr. Lollard’s argumentation is an ad hominem argument that is obfuscatory at best and disingenuous at worst. As a gentleman, I have chosen not to point to similar sins of your ministers and preachers because it has nothing to do with the argument at hand. I will break that self-imposed rule in order to address your argument. Under your theology, your own sins are just as great as those you claim done by some non-existent “pornocracy” and are just as damning. Frankly, according to your notions of total depravity you can not legitimately denounce sinful priests without denouncing yourself equally. So paraphrasing Our Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, remove the beam from your own eye hypocrite before looking for the mote in your neighbor’s. <br /><br />Moreover, at least the Catholic Church acknowledges the problem within it and has worked to correct it, something that apparently the sons and daughters of Wittenburg and Geneva here have chosen not to acknowledge among your own congregations. See, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1850676/posts and http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/it-aint-just-catholic-priests-more.html . Do you not know that Satan focuses his attacks on our pastors and our leaders to cause us to lose faith, to demoralize us and lose hope? Your use of such argumentation is furthering the father of lies’ work. <br /><br />You wrote: Now, I don't write that with a relish, [etc, blah, blah, blah.] <br /><br />I respond: You quote from Rom. 3 but your usage shows that you don’t understand it or Catholic teaching otherwise you would not be judging me or my heart as you folks are wont to say. Since you like to quote the Psalms, why haven’t you made the connection here between Romans 3 and Psalms 13-14?Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-52276812248475015352010-09-15T01:05:32.247-04:002010-09-15T01:05:32.247-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75729443429596257612010-09-15T01:01:21.381-04:002010-09-15T01:01:21.381-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16626454050798974832010-09-14T23:43:54.774-04:002010-09-14T23:43:54.774-04:00TUAD said,"Not only CAN "she" ERR i...TUAD said,"Not only CAN "she" ERR in teaching doctrine in matters of faith and morals, but "she" DID ERR in teaching doctrine in matters of faith and morals."<br /><br />You still didn't get the crucial point. Well what you said is according to your opinion.<br /><br />Peace.Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33200514407022565582010-09-14T23:23:36.252-04:002010-09-14T23:23:36.252-04:00NATAMLLC said, "And what might those heretica...NATAMLLC said, "And what might those heretical teachings be that you have in mind?"<br /><br />Thanks for the question.<br /><br />Setting aside our "differences" of opinion about Justification by faith alone, Bible Alone and for Catholics Justification by faith through love and Bible and the Church.<br /><br />Again, we can accuse each other of heresy (error) so it's none tangible.<br /><br />The important points are, just to be brief because I have already posted this topic - Did our church fall astray by declaring and teaching what is morally wrong as of today being morally right just because of the pressures of the secular world? <br /><br />Do agree that, Truth is Truth, it is One, same from the old to the present, unchangeable, steadfast?<br /><br />If so, before 1930 ALL Christian Churches agreed that artificial contraception is unnatural and against the will of God...until the Anglicans opened the doors in their Lambeth Conference in 1930 then afterwards one by one, protestant churches caved-in. We are not yet talking about abortion.<br /><br />How about gay-marriage? If you belong in one of these churches where Evangelical Lutheran Church, Church of Christ, Congregationalist, Episcopalian church, Anglican church ,Unitarians, Presbyterian church and other independent evangelical churches say gay-marriage is a blessing and in no way contrary to the Bible - what would you do? Do you think according to your opinion they are heretical?Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85290348746200858792010-09-14T23:03:34.143-04:002010-09-14T23:03:34.143-04:00"The Catholic Church through the ages have be...<i>"The Catholic Church through the ages have been claiming that when she declare, promulgate and teach a doctrine in matters of faith and morals she CANNOT ERR."</i><br /><br />Not only <i>CAN</i> "she" <i>ERR</i> in teaching doctrine in matters of faith and morals, but "she" <i>DID ERR</i> in teaching doctrine in matters of faith and morals.<br /><br />Again, that's not to say that "she" erred in <i>all</i> of her doctrines. That would be a stupid thing to say.<br /><br />Pax.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64400329041316142632010-09-14T22:53:14.566-04:002010-09-14T22:53:14.566-04:00TUAD said, "I'm not sure why you have a m...TUAD said, "I'm not sure why you have a mental block. Just because the Catholic Church is wrong on some things does not mean that the Catholic Church is wrong on all things. What a stupid thing to think."<br /><br />The Catholic Church through the ages have been claiming that when she declare, promulgate and teach a doctrine in matters of faith and morals she CANNOT ERR. Either you accept this or not it doesn't matter because the claim had already been made and thus your presupposition that the Church went wrong on "some" things doesn't really hold water.<br /><br />This is an "arrogant" claim that she made following her Master, a man claiming to be GOD!.<br /><br />Therefore, the stupid remark is unwarranted and thus should rightly stay in your mouth.Jaehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08949794711507726903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9591288126072435982010-09-14T20:39:10.866-04:002010-09-14T20:39:10.866-04:00Hello Mr. Lollard, I would never comment on your m...Hello Mr. Lollard, I would never comment on your mental state or doubt the sincerity of your views. Because of all the comments here, it would be counterproductive for me to try to answer them all individually. There are not enough hours in the day to do that. You do raise some points that I feel dovetail with somethings that Mr. Enloe raises in his statement that I will try to address. Please forgive me if it takes a couple of days to do so.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-23129522585060972722010-09-14T20:33:04.876-04:002010-09-14T20:33:04.876-04:00So, Mr. Hoffer, I read the Bible reference you men...So, Mr. Hoffer, I read the Bible reference you mention, to Exodus 32. I presume you're trying to refer to the general golden calf incident.<br /><br />Great!<br /><br />Let's refer to the golden calf incident. Israel committed grave sin and came under the wrath of God. Elsewhere, Israel fell into doctrinal error and also fell under the wrath of God. If you keep reading, God is merciful and forgiving, slow to anger and quick to forgive, and yet will enforce justice to the fullest extent on those who are arrogant and boastful.<br /><br />I'm not sure how on earth you think Israel's doctrinal error (where they started praying to a statue.. weird... why would God forbid an innocuous thing like that?) gets you out of your predicament. If anything, it sticks you deeper in that hole.<br /><br />Which, by the way, the predicament is about authority. The most common Catholic claim is that Matthew 16:19 is the establishment of magisterial infallibility. The verse explicitly refers to the Church being able to resist the gates of Hell.<br /><br />Why am I supposed to believe that resisting the gates of Hell means exactly, no more and no less, than to continue teaching as a matter of faith and not of private judgement the deposit of faith free from doctrinal error? Maybe you could argue that's included in there, but when I think of the gates of Hell being opened and unleashed upon the Church and the enemy prevailing, I think of things like the pedophile scandal, the pornocracy, the cadaver synod, and the murders of Rome.<br /><br />Either the forces of Hell have no interest in clerical orgies and senseless violence and aggression, or that verse means something other than what you want it to mean.<br /><br />I just really have a hard time believing that the Roman church was as corrupt and repulsive as it once was, and yet has stood firm against the gates of Hell by not teaching that Mary consummated her marriage to her husband. Maybe I'm crazy.John Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78749711342090845532010-09-14T16:45:48.195-04:002010-09-14T16:45:48.195-04:00PH: If one was truly moved by Scripture to reform...PH: <i> If one was truly moved by Scripture to reform the Church, one would have stayed in it to do so. Leaving the Catholic Church was an act of cowardice. There is nothing brave about being a heretic.</i><br /><br />Hmmmmmm? In light of John Lollard's indicting and painfully real words above about the "pornocracy" existent within the Magisterium and the Roman Catholic Church Priesthood which it has become and in fact, is, even still in some regards, in part, I will off out a brave coward and heretic then! <br /><br />Now, I don't write that with an relish. Sin is sin and everyone has its nature and there really isn't much of a distinction to it from any Scriptural basis of it.<br /><br />I do rely upon these Words as Truth in evidence to the facts I know:<br /><br /><b>Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; <br />Rom 3:11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. <br />Rom 3:12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one." <br />Rom 3:13 "Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." <br />Rom 3:14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness." <br />Rom 3:15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood; <br />Rom 3:16 in their paths are ruin and misery, <br />Rom 3:17 and the way of peace they have not known." <br />Rom 3:18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes."</b> <br /><br /><br />It's like one Pastor said from the pulpit, as I recall, "there are sinners in hell right now just like there are sinners in Heaven right now. It is all a matter of election and adoption which sinner you are. <br /><br />It is not a matter of sin!<br /><br />All your words do, Paul, is establish that you are working out your salvation from a position of self-right judgments.<br /><br />For which sins you do not know about do you these things you believe to equate atonement for those sins seeing it is a work of righteousness you are doing to atone for those sins you know you are guilty of?<br /><br />How do you die in self-righteous works believing these are what is necessary and acceptable, jointly with the finished Work of the Cross of Christ and expect to enter into Christ's Righteousness after you die?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-99721877527887472010-09-14T16:28:19.462-04:002010-09-14T16:28:19.462-04:00PH: I can truly feel inspired with the moving test...PH: <i>I can truly feel inspired with the moving testimony of the Church triumphant</i> <b><i>in action later on.</i></b><br /><br />Paul, will expand what you mean by "in action later on"?<br /><br />In your mind, when is the Church "triumphant"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67714184632046440972010-09-14T15:56:42.783-04:002010-09-14T15:56:42.783-04:00PH: I can do so because I at least understand tha...PH: <i> I can do so because I at least understand that infallibility is a limitation on the pope’s authority that prevents him from teaching error.</i><br /><br />Paul, can you point me to a Scriptural citation for that claim?<br /><br />PH: <i> I make the distinction between his personal views and those of made plain when he speaks ex cathedra because the teachings of the Church state such. My opinion is irrelevant.[sic]</i><br /><br />Yes, your opinion is irrelevant, unless you also, as those that have gone on before the current pope, are in a position to vote the majority and your vote counts as that one vote that seats the next in line for the See of Rome from the body of Cardinals, voting, and just before the burning and the white smoke fills the stack the white smoke bellows forth from? In your case now, then, opinions matter, don't they? <br /><br />Wouldn't your opinion be relevant to the infallibility of the pope's office and edicts so that what he says or writes ex cathedra after installation to the See, when presented to the world? Thus they carry weight all the way to each of his subjects and ironically, including your opinion which you now claim to be irrelevant?<br /><br />It is interesting the point Tim Enloe made in this regard:<br /><br />TE: <i>It never occurs to them, I guess, that maybe the problem is that their imagination is too small to handle the real world.</i><br /><br />I guess we can conflate that with swallowing the pig whole? Or not?<br /><br />PH: <i>I respond: Only because you don’t understand or accept the teachings of the Catholic Church.</i><br /><br />Why do you believe that? How do you know what is in my heart that I don't believe?<br /><br />PH: <i>I write: I agree which is why I accept the Church’s teaching that the Pope is infallible when he speaks or writes ex cathedra because he is being guided by the Third Person of the Holy Trinity Who is infallible.</i><br /><br />What if you are wrong? Are you not now claiming your opinion, which you claim is irrelevant, is right, thus making it infallible, too?<br /><br />Talk about swallowing pig whole! I would have to say those words epitomize that aphorism!<br /><br />Assuming now you believe the Bible is produced by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you have made a distinction above about the Holy Spirit regarding His inspiration as one of the Holy Trinity. He indeed is Infallible and He is God. <br /><br />Of the Scriptures inspired by Him, which ones do you adhere to in not adhering to the things not in evidence from the Scriptures He inspired to conflate that claim to the infallibility of papal office authority, which is your claim? Do you now claim the pope is God on the earth when he speaks ex cathedra?<br /><br />Again, as one observed above, I guess the devils' gates, which are few or many, move then? That certainly is a dichotomy that defeats the verse!<br /><br /><b>Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-62640239725493253132010-09-14T14:59:44.915-04:002010-09-14T14:59:44.915-04:00PH: I respond: I can argue for infallibility becau...PH: <i>I respond: I can argue for infallibility because the source of infallibility is the Holy Spirit. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, it is the Holy Spirit who guided him to do so and protected him from erring in doing so.</i><br /><br />Hmmmmmm? And you still maintain that Peter is the first Pope of Roman Catholicism then and now?<br /><br />I am wondering if you read John Lollard's response above?<br /><br />Can you conflate and relate his remarks then with yours there that I cite above, your response to my earlier question?<br /><br />Do you agree with John that those sins he has chronicled have their basis in existential facts and are not just some foolish imaginings of a lunatic man?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-65699773571623606562010-09-14T14:52:44.480-04:002010-09-14T14:52:44.480-04:00JAE,
But it's a different thing for a christi...JAE,<br /><br /><i>But it's a different thing for a christian church to teach and proclaim heretical teachings as true.</i><br /><br />And what might those heretical teachings be that you have in mind?<br /><br />I sincerely am asking you because I would like to know what it is you are thinking the heretical teachings to be?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-39631789055232232262010-09-14T13:40:15.977-04:002010-09-14T13:40:15.977-04:00Paul Hoffer,
Your first paragraph to me was a non...Paul Hoffer,<br /><br />Your first paragraph to me was a non-sequitur. Likely based on non-comprehension. Let me try this from a different angle.<br /><br />I wrote: "Eg., it is often said that there are and will be Catholics who will be in Heaven despite Church teaching, not because of Church teaching. For these Christians I wholeheartedly applaud their departure from Magisterial dogma."<br /><br />Let me flesh this out with some examples. Suppose 30% of Catholics don't believe in the Real Presence. Furthermore, suppose they also know that the Church teaches the Real Presence and they don't accept the Church's teaching. Lastly, suppose that some of these Catholics who don't believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, in fact, die and go to Heaven.<br /><br /><i>For these Christians I wholeheartedly applaud their departure from Magisterial dogma.</i><br /><br />Another example. Let's assume Joe is a Catholic policeman. Joe never fornicates. Joe is single. Joe masturbates. Joe has done it for years. He knows that the Church teaches that masturbation is mortal sin. He does not go to confession and seek penance. Instead, he effectively thinks this: "The Church teaching on masturbation is ridiculous crap. But hey, I grew up Catholic, my family is Catholic, and the Catholic Church does do some good things. So I do accept and affirm a lot of teachings of the Church, but this crock about masturbation being a mortal sin is absurd. Fuggedaboutit!"<br /><br />Joe the Catholic policeman then dies in the line of duty without confessing his masturbation to a priest. Joe goes to Heaven to be with Jesus. <br /><br /><i>For these Christians like Joe I wholeheartedly applaud their departure from Magisterial dogma.</i><br /><br />Another example. Betty Homemaker is a long-time Catholic who majored in European History and is knowledgeable about Church history. Betty effectively thinks the Magisterium's Doctrine of Indulgences is garbage. She's too polite to say so, but she believes it in her heart. She thinks it's stupid. And she thinks the Catholics who fall for it aren't too bright. Betty rejects the Church's teachings on this particular point of dogma.<br /><br />Betty dies and goes to Heaven.<br /><br /><i>For these Christians like Betty I wholeheartedly applaud their departure from Magisterial dogma.</i>Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-456452602115086812010-09-14T12:56:45.409-04:002010-09-14T12:56:45.409-04:00I can argue for infallibility because the source o...<i>I can argue for infallibility because the source of infallibility is the Holy Spirit. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, it is the Holy Spirit who guided him to do so and protected him from erring in doing so. </i><br /><br />Facts not in evidence.<br /><br />The source of infallibility certainly is the Holy Spirit but it is not a trait He shares with His creation (Isaiah 48:11). Only his Word passes that test (Psalm 19:9)<br /><br />But what’s most curious about this infallibility thing, is why, in the “one true church” it has been used so sparingly. If the RCC is, in fact, that organization outside of which there is no salvation (Unum Sanctum), one could reasonably assume a plethora of infallible pronouncements – everything that is said should be infallible.<br /><br />And especially about the Roman distinctives i.e. efficacious sacraments, man forgiving sins, transubstantiation, priests as “alter Christi”, etc. etc. etc. Why no infallible pronouncements about the Roman distinctives?<br /><br />“Papal primacy, as presently exercised, constitutes a block both to further development of the ecumenical movement and to reform movements with the Catholic Church…It (historical knowledge) indicates very clearly that the form of the papacy defined by Vatican I, with its absolute power of primacy and magisterial “infallibility,” is not founded in the New Testament. Neither is it the original constitutional form of the Church, nor even that of the Catholic Church throughout its history. No new findings are needed to reach this conclusion….In addition, Catholic theology should examine the extent to which the definitions concerning primacy and infallibility have the character of dogma. For it is also Catholic conviction that dogma must have biblical foundations or, rather, foundations in the Gospel. And, of course, this foundation must now be shown in terms of the textual evidence ascertainable via historical criticism. It was, after all, the same Vatican I – probably without being aware of the significance of its statement – which asserted with respect to papal infallibility: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter and his successors in order that they might promulgate through his revelation a new doctrine, but that under his guidance they might preserve and faithfully interpret the revelation transmitted through the apostles, or the deposit of faith (depositum fidei).” The faith transmitted through the apostles, i.e., in Holy Scripture, may not be expanded by new teachings. Every interpretation must be proved to be the interpretation of apostolic doctrine”<br /><br />Ohlig, Karl-Heinz. Why We Need the Pope: The Necessity and Limitations of Papal Primacy. Trans. Dr. Robert C. Ware. St. Meinrad, Indiana, USA. Abbey Press, 1975. Trans. of Braucht die Kirche einen Papst?. Germany, 1973. p. ix.<br /><br /><br />So if Paul Hoffer is right – that the Holy Spirit keeps the RC from error – and Vatican I says that the Holy Spirit was given NOT to the apostles to create new doctrine and that dogma must have “biblical foundations” of which there is none for the doctrine of infallibility – what then of this mystical, magical doctrine?<br /><br />RC theology runs aground on the erroneous irreformable and “infallible” pronouncements of its leader.<br /><br />Peace.Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00759432774174066023noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78572245051343224432010-09-14T09:13:32.974-04:002010-09-14T09:13:32.974-04:00Hey Jae, excellent point. If the magisterium can ...Hey Jae, excellent point. If the magisterium can be wrong about one thing, then can be wrong about anything. At all.<br /><br />But praise God for the human faculties of thought!<br /><br />I don't know how you make the leap from "it'd sure stink if..." to "therefore didn't happen". It's a pretty<br />big leap. Let's try it this way. If the Magisterium is fallible, then it can be wrong, and it can be wrong on anythig. We have no reason to suspect the Magisterium to be infallible and prooftexting Matt 16 gives the opposite impression. Therefore, the Magisterium could have erred on anything, and may even have erred whole-pig.John Lollardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15463317544726062051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78136822762860079772010-09-14T08:49:11.964-04:002010-09-14T08:49:11.964-04:00Dear Truth Unites and Divides: Thank you for answe...Dear Truth Unites and Divides: Thank you for answering my question to you and a pragmatic answer at that. Of course, it would have been helpful to know what your criteria is for deciding which Catholics make the cut in your eyes and which ones don’t. I do not personally know of any Catholics who deny Marian doctrines or the Communion of Saints or the Mass as a sacrifice though. The only Catholics I know about dissenting from the Magisterial teachings of the Church are the ones who want to use artificial birth control, defend abortion, promote homosexual marriage, women priests and so forth. If you find such things to be admirable and will lead Catholics into heaven despite Church teachings then we really do not have too much more to talk about. On the other hand, if you are talking about folks like Kung or de Chardin, or liberal Catholics or sedevacanists, what is it exactly that you do find admirable about them. Is dissent enough of a criterion to get into heaven. If that is the case, why isn’t Satan there? After all, isn’t his real crime against God that he dissented from His magisterial authority? <br /><br />You wrote: “I abhor Catholic clergy, priests and bishops . . .”<br /><br />Me: I abhor their sin as well but according to Protestant doctrine where all men are sinners and there is no mortal sin or venial sin, do you believe that their sinful behavior is any more sinful than anyone else? As a Catholic I do believe in mortal vs. venial sin as taught by the Church so I would have a basis for holding these men up for abhorrence and excoriation. How do you justify holding some men up for special abhorrence with a theology that teaches that all are sinner and are equally guilty in the eyes of God?<br /><br />As for Mr. Lollard’s comment, it is a nice piece of hyperbole but I thought we were talking about the authority of the Church here not the sinfulness of the people in it. Besides, what Mr. Lollard’s comments really show is that he is not familiar with Exodus 32:7-14. And on a more practical note, make no mistake-what those priests and bishops did is sinful according to Catholic teaching whereas in some Protestant denominations all one has to do is get a majority vote to redefine sin not to include those things. Rather than seeking forgiveness from the One Who Died on the Cross, it would seem that many denominations of Protestantism are trending towards finding forgiveness in Webster’s. We both have something to be ashamed of.<br /><br />God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-25030409852853038262010-09-14T06:20:38.405-04:002010-09-14T06:20:38.405-04:00Jae: "But it's a different thing for a c...<b>Jae</b>: <i>"But it's a different thing for a christian church to teach and proclaim heretical teachings as true. If it is so that the church could err at all then it follows she could err in ANY POINT - Then what would stop us to believed that what you got are all wrong in the first place?"</i><br /><br />I'm not sure why you have a mental block. Just because the Catholic Church is wrong on some things does not mean that the Catholic Church is wrong on all things.<br /><br />What a stupid thing to think.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-20232851099117533922010-09-14T06:13:50.439-04:002010-09-14T06:13:50.439-04:00Paul Hoffer: "BTW, do you find anything admi...<b>Paul Hoffer</b>: <i>"BTW, do you find anything admirable about those folks who label themselves as Catholics but do not follow what the Church teaches?"</i><br /><br />Depends on what Church teaching that they are not following.<br /><br />Eg., it is often said that there are and will be Catholics who will be in Heaven <i>despite</i> Church teaching, not because of Church teaching. For these Christians I wholeheartedly applaud their departure from Magisterial dogma.<br /><br />Eg., I abhor Catholic clergy, priests and bishops, who are either pedophiles and fornicators or who have covered up Catholic clergy pedophiles and Catholic clergy fornicators. I assume you'd agree that Catholic clergy who commit pedophilia and fornication while wearing the collar, as well as the clergy hierarchy who covered up for them, do still call themselves Catholics despite not following what the Church teaches on clergy pedophilia and clergy fornication.<br /><br /><i>"What we do have a problem with is questioning the magisterial authority of the Church."</i><br /><br />John Lollard said it quite well. So well that it bears repeating.<br /><br />Questioning the magisterial authority of the Church?<br /><br />Lollard: "Apparently, I'm supposed to understand this to mean freedom from doctrinal error. I don't know why. Apparently I'm supposed to understand this as meaning that the enemy has sent out armies of demons (I guess that's the gates?) and all these armies want to do is trick the pope in to teaching that Mary was a sinner and her body rotted into dust. But those armies won't succeed, because Jesus promised that they wouldn't. Those armies couldn't care less about orgies in cathedrals, clergy-only brothels, the rape of pilgrims, the slaughtering of innocent people, putting an exhumed and rotting corpse on trial, assasinations and political intrigue. None of that stuff has anything to do with Hades or demons or the enemy. They're more interested in things like denying purgatory.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if your organization can be described as a 'pornocracy', then the gates of Hades have prevailed against your organization. Whether you've got spotless doctrine or not."Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-56117616712311542252010-09-14T02:00:30.015-04:002010-09-14T02:00:30.015-04:00Hello TUAD (I hope you don’t mind me abbreviating ...Hello TUAD (I hope you don’t mind me abbreviating your handle)<br /> <br />You wrote: Paul Hoffer, there are many liberal Catholics, many cultural Catholics, and many cafeteria Catholics who really do NOT "assent" to all the Church's teachings in various sundry ways, and two things stand out as a result:<br /><br />(1) They all still call themselves Catholics.<br /><br />(2) Their local parish clergy still call them Catholics. Their tithes and offerings, whether occasional are not, are still welcome for the upkeep of the parish and the diocese (not to mention any legal expenses).<br /><br />I respond: I have never said that the Church is not made up of both saints and sinners but as far as what label one wants to place on oneself, that is their problem. What is the point of being Catholic in name, yet not adhering to Catholicism. One can lie to others and fool them or one can lie and it is even said that one could fool oneself, but one can not lie to God and fool Him. I am sure that there are kind of folks who call themselves Reformed, but that does not mean that they really are as is frequently pointed out here and on other Reformed minded blogs.<br /><br />BTW, do you find anything admirable about those folks who label themselves as Catholics but do not follow what the Church teaches?<br /><br />You wrote: So if a conservative Catholic wants to exercise his private judgment and say to his fellow liberal Catholics that they should not call themselves Catholic, by all means, please go ahead and shout it from the parish rooftop.<br /><br />I respond: the rooftop at my Church is pretty steep and covered with slippery tiles so I respectfully exercise my private judgment and decline to follow your suggestion. Seriously though, I have no problem pointing out the errors of a Nancy Pelosi or a John Kerry , one the Kennedy clan or even a Cardinal Mahoney. I have done so in the past and I am sure that I will I get up the gumption to do so again. I also have no problem praying that they will amend their ways as well. St. Paul had no problem rebuking St. Peter; St. Catherine of Sienna and St, Francis of Assisi had not qualms of correcting a pope; and Dante had no problem assigning popes and bishop to hell. What we do have a problem with is questioning the magisterial authority of the Church. <br /><br />I hope to respond some more tomorrow. God bless!Paul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-7505867617714706292010-09-14T01:59:04.255-04:002010-09-14T01:59:04.255-04:00Hello Constantine,
You queried: Would it be bad...Hello Constantine, <br /><br />You queried: Would it be bad form to inquire why your private judgment towards Rome does not factor in human doubt?<br /><br />I respond: Not all my friend. I do doubt that I will understand everything that the Catholic Church holds, but I do not at all doubt the verity of what the Catholic Church does hold to be true. St Augustine and St. Anselm put it bit different-faith leads to understanding. Since I know by faith what the Church teaches is true, it enables me to focus my researches, my reflections on the Word of God, and my prayer life on those things so my will and understanding conforms with the Church that Christ established and which the Holy Spirit still guides to this day. I hope that clears things up a tad.<br /><br /> You wrote: Actually certainty/certitude of the truth will never be found in any part of God’s creation – RC or Protestant. In fact the Apostle Paul goes so far as to say, “Let God be true and every man a liar.” (Rom. 3:4) So, Paul, to look for truth in any church is to be lookin’ in the wrong place.<br /><br />I respond: if God is true and Jesus Christ is God then He is truth (Jn. 14:6). St. Paul writes in several places that the Church is the body of Christ. If he is correct in this assertion, then the Church as Christ’s Body is also has the truth in it. Since the Church is Christ’s creation, then it is the one place where certainty/certitude can be found in this creation. There is only one Church that identifies itself as that Christ’s creation-the Catholic Church. <br /><br />You wrote: Interestingly, too, doubt is built into the Christian religion and is even an Apostolic command: “Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (1 Thess. 5:21). <br /><br />I respond: the testing or proving as is in the version of the Scriptures I have in my hands that St. Paul is referring to is as to the new prophecies referred to in verse 20. This is a pretty good verse as to why the novel teachings of the Reformers should be tested and rejected since they do not conform with what the Catholic Church teaches. Men can deceive and be deceived, but the Spirit of God, speaking to us by his Church, can neither deceive us nor be deceived.<br /><br />You wrote: In the first of Galatians, Paul sets the standard for truth as the combination of the gospel preached by the apostle (Gal. 1:8) and which was received by God’s people by the leading of the Holy Spirit (1:9).<br /><br />I respond: The Catholic Church teaches that the Gospel as taught by Paul and that which has been received by the Church is the same one it teaches now. And referencing Acts 17:11 is an example of faith leading to understanding as I have mentioned.<br /><br />You wrote: The Roman position of blind acceptance seems the antithesis of the Apostle’s command. And, by relying solely on an earthly “Magisterium” it cuts off half of the Apostolic formula for truth about anything.<br /><br />I respond: There is nothing blind about my acceptance. Although I am a cradle Catholic, I study the Scriptures and the teachings of the Church as best I can within the capabilities that God chose to give me. The difference is that my understanding is directed to knowing better God’s truth. It seems that often the understanding that Protestants have is directed at disproving it.<br /><br />You wrote: In sum, certainty is a gift from God that results from the preaching of His Word AND the acceptance by His faithful, both sides of the operation being the work of the Holy Spirit.<br /><br />I respond: I agree! It all boils down to grace.<br /><br />You wrote: We haven’t interacted in a while, Paul, so I wish you well and hope you are prospering in Ohio. Peace.<br /><br />I respond: That is my loss to be sure. I enjoy discoursing with you. I wish you and yours the same. God’s blessings alwaysPaul Hofferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com