tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post773126848321401070..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Adventures in the CatechismJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger91125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24517689519779886792009-11-22T14:07:02.074-05:002009-11-22T14:07:02.074-05:00"Why would you say this? What has Matthew sai..."Why would you say this? What has Matthew said that would lead you to believe that it wouldn't matter to him when Church teaching is being carried out?"<br /><br />Because his argument was that since these people are automatically excommunicated anyway, there was no need for them to be formally excommunicated. As he himself said:<br /><br />"Are you serious? Do you even know what you are talking about? The Church teaches that these people are not in communion with the Church, via Canon Law and Church teaching. **No one has to "excommunicate" them, they excommunicate themselves.** So no, we are not in "fellowship" with those "Catholics" who endorse abortion. The Church has been very clear on that. They excommunicate themselves by professing formal heresy. Canon 1364. Learn before you write."<br /><br />(Emph. added)<br /><br />Now, in my opinion this is not a considered position by Matthew, but a function of the common habit on the Internet of acting like everything an opponent says must be either objectively wrong, a product if stupidity, a gross misunderstanding or just the product of malice--and possibly all of them. It cannot be that the opponent has a point. <br /><br />Suffice it to say that the bishop in question does not seem to agree with Matthew's claims re: automatic excommunication.<br /><br />I should also point out the the bishop in question is still a little mealy mouthed, but he seems to be on the right track.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-85102732455214977792009-11-22T13:08:11.581-05:002009-11-22T13:08:11.581-05:00Not that Matthew thinks it actually matters:
Why ...<i>Not that Matthew thinks it actually matters:</i><br /><br />Why would you say this? What has Matthew said that would lead you to believe that it wouldn't matter to him when Church teaching is being carried out?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />TrollAlexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14249407116297864712009-11-22T10:11:49.639-05:002009-11-22T10:11:49.639-05:00Not that Matthew thinks it actually matters:
http...Not that Matthew thinks it actually matters:<br /><br />http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/22/report-kennedy-barred-communion-stance-abortion/<br /><br />Report: Kennedy Barred From Communion for Stance on Abortion<br /><br />I actually rejoice if this is true.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24138138908283164772009-11-21T10:50:19.511-05:002009-11-21T10:50:19.511-05:00Andrew said:
> I think this has all gotten far...Andrew said: <br />> I think this has all gotten far <br />> away from the point at hand.<br /><br />I agree Andrew, and I prepared a post on my blog which deals more directly with the "authority" issue. It's nearly impossible to format it appropriately in the comments section, so I posted to my blog.<br /><br /><a href="http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/11/authority-of-church.html" rel="nofollow">http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/11/authority-of-church.html</a><br /> <br />In JMJ,<br />Scott<<<Scott Windsorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01961374547503296840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-75233629535216193852009-11-21T07:42:05.655-05:002009-11-21T07:42:05.655-05:00"What about the Inquisition and the Crusades?...<i><b>"What about the Inquisition and the Crusades? What do you know about them?"</b></i><br /><br />Matthew, <br /><br />Since you've elected to avoid the main thrust of my comment, I will do likewise to yours.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-55026743795530606162009-11-21T00:32:09.396-05:002009-11-21T00:32:09.396-05:00What about the Inquisition and the Crusades? What ...What about the Inquisition and the Crusades? What do you know about them?James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-49021451737832050912009-11-20T22:31:33.185-05:002009-11-20T22:31:33.185-05:00"Prove there are no Catholics living the infa...<i><b>"Prove there are no Catholics living the infallible teaching of the Church, then you would have an argument. Unfortunately using examples like Pelosi doesn't help your case. The example of the Saints and how they lived Catholic doctrine proves that the infallible teaching is lived out in many lives."</b></i><br /><br />This is repesentative of RCC apologetics. Have you ever noticed that no example presented ever gains traction? It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" type of argumentation. <br /><br />Catholic Apologist: "Look at all the 'saints of the church', that proves the RCC is the One True Church."<br /><br />Protestant: "What about the Great Schism, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Borgia popes, the sex abuse scandal?"<br /><br />Catholic Apologist: "Those don't count except to show that the Gates of Hell won't prevail against the One True Church."<br /><br />Ya' can't argue with "logic" like that!EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43830659546702435452009-11-20T15:47:57.530-05:002009-11-20T15:47:57.530-05:00I think this has all gotten far away from the poin...I think this has all gotten far away from the point at hand.<br /><br /><i>"sw: And don't you know your Scripture?<br /><br />Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; <br />(John 10:34-35 KJV)<br /><br />sw: Of course you want to insist we take it solely from that context, but to anyone who KNOWS Scripture are not confused by this. We don't read the Catechism in a vacuum."</i><br /><br />Scott -<br />Are you claiming that you are a god or that you will be one? Since you claim to KNOW Scripture, can you explain what you mean?Andrew Suttleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05006722357616296522noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-80248769467512450822009-11-20T13:22:28.035-05:002009-11-20T13:22:28.035-05:00Pelosi took part in communion when the pope visite...Pelosi took part in communion when the pope visited her country (<a href="http://news.muckety.com/2008/04/17/abortion-rights-supporters-kerry-pelosi-take-communion-at-papal-mass/2232" rel="nofollow">link</a>).Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18196578454284887862009-11-20T13:05:13.475-05:002009-11-20T13:05:13.475-05:00Matthew, you've missed my point entirely. See,...Matthew, you've missed my point entirely. See, I don't claim that anyone has an infallible interpretation of scripture. The argument that is used against my position is that I need an infallible interpreter or my infallible book is only as useful as my fallible interpretation. I was simply applying that logic to the issue of the RCC'c authority claims. An infallible authority which is fallibly applied is functionally fallible. You claim that this is a bad argument, and you would be right except for one thing. It is your church's argument against my position applied back to what your church says about itself. My argument stands because of the grandiose claims of your church.Andrewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15056210915546208869noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-51673303963676724102009-11-20T11:21:36.921-05:002009-11-20T11:21:36.921-05:00Alex,
"In other words Edward, if we were to ...Alex,<br /><br />"In other words Edward, if we were to follow your example of the king, if he doesn't execise strict judgment on every person who acts against his law then he in truth doesn't have the authority to exercise judgment or his laws are not really law?"<br /><br />No, if you read my post you will see I made a distinction between public, willful defiance of the king and someone who violates the law but no one except perhaps he and his mother and father know about it.<br /><br />So yes, if the king does nothing about the flagrant violator, the one proclaiming I am the son pf peasants and yet I attend to the king, functionally the law is inoperable. At best there is completely arbitrary enforcement of the law so long as the flagrant, public violator goes free.<br /><br />I believe I have been consistent in keeping this distinction.<br /><br />Finally, I don't expect the Majesterium to peer into the hearts of everyone--but if someone blatantly and publicly goes against Church teaching while participating in the highest form of fellowship, is it too much to expect a public rebuke, including public excommunication?<br /><br />Put bluntly, why, if it is acknowledged Pelosi/Biden etc. have excommunicated themselves, do they continue to receive? It seems the acts of the Ordinary Majesterium would contradict the claims of excommunication.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66607747375267162072009-11-20T11:06:52.635-05:002009-11-20T11:06:52.635-05:00In other words Edward, if we were to follow your e...In other words Edward, if we were to follow your example of the king, if he doesn't execise strict judgment on every person who acts against his law then he in truth doesn't have the authority to exercise judgment or his laws are not really law? <br /><br />If a modern day prosecutor doesn't prosecute someone who violated the law, does that mean that the law isn't law or that the prosecutor doesn't truly have the authority to prosecute?<br /><br />If a particular bishop doesn't exercise swift puishment when the canon law or Church teaching requires, then the argument would be made against him as an individual and not his office. <br /><br />The arguments from you side on this issue are so full of fallacious reasoning that I am surprised that you continue to pursue them. It is as if you have this conception of Church teaching that is at odds with reality, and it is from this fantasy which you wish to pursue an argument.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-24749848821074364812009-11-20T10:48:52.860-05:002009-11-20T10:48:52.860-05:00Pelosi and Matthew B are apparently in two differe...Pelosi and Matthew B are apparently in two different denominations of Romanism. Both are apparently OK with the RC hierarchy, 'cause they haven't done anythg to stop the Pelosi flavor.<br /><br />But I thought denominations = disunity = evil. <br /><br />I don't expect Matthew to change his lame arguments or even follow this one. It's not that he's necessarily stupid, it's that he's blind and far too emotional.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38056460749361091302009-11-20T10:40:17.077-05:002009-11-20T10:40:17.077-05:00Matthew,
"No I am not objectively in fellows...Matthew,<br /><br />"No I am not objectively in fellowship with Pelosi. She is excommunicated by formal heresy."<br /><br />That is just your private opinion, as one can watch her take part in the highest form of fellowship with the approval of the Ordinary Majesterium despite her supposed excommunication and public sin.<br /><br />And who are you to determine whether she is a "real" Catholic or not, when the acts of the Majesterium contradict it?<br /><br />Remember, we are talking about public, flagrant violations of Church teaching here. Why can she approach the altar and receive?Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38298915742502561592009-11-20T10:36:39.978-05:002009-11-20T10:36:39.978-05:00Matthew,
"Prove there are no Catholics livin...Matthew,<br /><br />"Prove there are no Catholics living the infallible teaching of the Church, then you would have an argument. Unfortunately using examples like Pelosi doesn't help your case. The example of the Saints and how they lived Catholic doctrine proves that the infallible teaching is lived out in many lives. Therefore your argument is not a tenable one. Try again."<br /><br />The point isn't whether or not there is a RC somewhere who lives according to Church teachings, but that Pelosi publicly and prominently defies Church teaching and yet is allowed into the highest form of fellowship. We are not talking about some obscure person who has an opinion he keeps in his heart, but very prominent people who go around and call themselves Catholic, and are objectively in fellowship with the Church. That is simply a brute fact. <br /><br />It is as if a King said everyone in his court had to be born of noble blood on both sides, and one of his courtiers went about loudly proclaiming that he is the son of peasants and yet he is till a member of the King's court--just look at how I attend to the king--as opposed to someone who had a milkmaid for a mother and keeps quiet about it. Both are contrary to the law, so to speak, but one is flagrant about it, and absent public punishment it calls the seriousness of the king into question. It also akes the king's law an abstraction, an idea one keeps in ones head. One doesn;t in that case obey the law because of the authority of the king, but because one, well, privately decides to do so.<br /><br />It is as simple as that, other, pious Catholics are not the issue.<br /><br />And I find it interesting that you keep trying to change the subject.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-12076149550719096412009-11-20T09:55:32.229-05:002009-11-20T09:55:32.229-05:00Edward writes, "Shouldn't teaching and in...Edward writes, "Shouldn't teaching and infallibility have a practical component, too? And if they don't, isnpt that a lot like faith without works?"<br /><br />Prove there are no Catholics living the infallible teaching of the Church, then you would have an argument. Unfortunately using examples like Pelosi doesn't help your case. The example of the Saints and how they lived Catholic doctrine proves that the infallible teaching is lived out in many lives. Therefore your argument is not a tenable one. Try again.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-41349109699807158732009-11-20T09:51:53.000-05:002009-11-20T09:51:53.000-05:00Edward said, "That is why I say you are in fe...Edward said, "That is why I say you are in fellowship with Nancy Pelosi--it is because objectively *you are*."<br /><br />No I am not objectively in fellowship with Pelosi. She is excommunicated by formal heresy. What is so hard for you to understand here? Are you that dense? Someone who is excommunicated because of formal heresy is no longer in communion with the Body of Christ. Therefore just because she receives Communion does not make her formal heresy disappear. Therefore, no, I am not in fellowship with her. You have made another false statement here. You apparently do not understand how excommunication works. Study up on that and then come back when are able to discuss these matters rationally.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6518721134274585602009-11-20T09:51:09.363-05:002009-11-20T09:51:09.363-05:00Exactly Edward Reiss.
What does it profit them if ...Ex<b>actly</b> Edward Reiss.<br />What does it profit them if they say they have infallibility but have no works?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-38652659255430796532009-11-20T09:49:05.409-05:002009-11-20T09:49:05.409-05:00"This has no bearing on the Church's abil..."This has no bearing on the Church's ability to teach infallibly. For you to make such an argument is absurd."<br /><br />This is because you see teaching an dinfallibility as an abstraction: as long as the documentation is OK and the priests say the right combination of words, it doesn't matter that flagrant, public sinners receive communion.<br /><br />Shouldn't teaching and infallibility have a practical component, too? And if they don't, isnpt that a lot like faith without works?Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-13875249540812349462009-11-20T09:47:45.399-05:002009-11-20T09:47:45.399-05:00And if not, then what good is an "infallible ...And if not, then what good is an "infallible teaching" that abortion is wrong if the church doesn't do anythg to punish those within her ranks that do it?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-79549068198904341912009-11-20T09:47:19.057-05:002009-11-20T09:47:19.057-05:00Oh sure, he'd listen to some no-name like me. ...Oh sure, he'd listen to some no-name like me. Please.<br /><br />Why doesn't his superior do sthg? If not him, then HIS superior? If not him, then the Pope?Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66698114836356067982009-11-20T09:45:40.562-05:002009-11-20T09:45:40.562-05:00Matthew,
"1. The Church does not endorse peo...Matthew,<br /><br />"1. The Church does not endorse people who advocate abortion. This is simply a lie. The Pope himself has declared, "Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist."<br /><br />And yet, as far as "ground truth" goes, these people still receive communion. The objective situation is more important, because the objective situation is what people see and hear the church proclaim. There is also the objective reception of Jesus' body and blood even if e.g. Jiuiani "automatically" excommunicated himself. Where is the proest supervising the mysteries of God? AWOL apparently, along with the bishop and in the case of Pelosi, to the pope himself as she received ad a mass over which he himself was presiding.<br /><br />"Clearly the Church has defined this clearly. If bishops obstinately do not follow the Church's teaching then they will be held accountable by God. The Pope can't police the thousands of bishops around the world. You also seem to think that the Pope is like a dictator that goes around policing everyone. That is also a mischaracterization of his role."<br /><br />I never said th epope is a dictator. You, however, make him sound impotent in the extreem. Are yo usure you believe that?<br /><br />Anyway, Pelosi received communion at a service over which *th epope himself was presiding* and later crowed about it. Surely the pope has some influence, nay power, over local bishops even if it is not "dictatorial"--and surely he has authority over a mass over which he himself presides! <br /><br />You see, Matthew, you are left in a difficult position because you are using the Church's teachings to correct the public ministry of the Majesterium and/or its priests. It doesn't matter how many documents you put forth--the teaching office of the Church allows people who publicly disagree with key RC moral teaching to receive the highest sacrament. As long as you quote the writings of the Majesterium against its public practice, you act like, well, a Protestant citing the Scriptures over and against Church practice because the public ministry of th eRCC differs from his "private interpretation" of Majesterial documents.<br /><br />It is rather polemic, but why is your interpretation of RC teaching more authoritative than the public teaching and acts of the Majesterium? <br /><br />BTW, I understand that formally the RC teaches against abortion. But a formal teaching with no effect in real life is in effect not a formal teaching. We must do good works--remember? Just like faith without works is dead, so a teaching not acted upon is dead.<br /><br />"2.The Church has never publicly proclaimed that these people are in good standing with the Church. That is also a lie. "<br /><br />Who is allowed to receive communion in the RCC? Am I wrong to say that it is Catholics in good standing, or can anyone join the party even if they "automatically excommunicate themselves" like, say, a Lutheran?<br /><br />What the Church *does* it publicly proclaims. So, if the Church gives communion to an unrepentant public sinner, the Church says that person is a Catholic in good standing--no matter what documents may say.<br /><br />BTW, my father was RC before he passed. At his funeral the RC priest asked me if I would be receiving. I told him I would not as I am a Lutheran, and he agreed with my non-reception. This is because receiving communion is, among other things, the highest form of fellowship for RCs and Lutherans. That is why I say you are in fellowship with Nancy Pelosi--it is because objectively *you are*.<br /><br />Would that the RC teaching office was so solicitous in the case of prominent, powerful people as with little old me.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-84721159444671237622009-11-20T09:42:48.817-05:002009-11-20T09:42:48.817-05:00Rhology, did you not read my earlier posts pertain...Rhology, did you not read my earlier posts pertaining to Pelosi? Do I look like the bishop who runs her diocese? Why don't you email him or the pastor who runs her church and ask them? This has no bearing on the Church's ability to teach infallibly. For you to make such an argument is absurd.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-68763107745503714122009-11-20T09:39:13.387-05:002009-11-20T09:39:13.387-05:00You're a lousy mindreader, Matthew.
And I ask...You're a lousy mindreader, Matthew.<br /><br />And I asked a very specific question. Pelosi. Answer it.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-21540495278236176522009-11-20T09:37:05.973-05:002009-11-20T09:37:05.973-05:00Rhology said, "Is it really too much to ask t...Rhology said, "Is it really too much to ask that an infallible church governing body occasionally perform church discipline?"<br /><br />Are you saying that the Church and her bishops never perform any disciplinary action? Can you prove that? I have already provided examples of the Church and its bishops doing just that. If I provided a long list of disciplinary actions the Church has taken against people would that change your mind? I doubt it, because you are not interested in truth. You are only interested in opposing the Catholic Church, nothing more. <br /><br />What is too much, is that you assume your own definitions of infallibility to the Catholic Church as being able to police the Church infallibly. This is ridiculous. As I stated before, the Church's teaching is clear. The fact that some who call themselves Catholic do not follow the Church's teaching does not have any bearing on the Church's ability to teach infallibly.James Bellisariohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01786370386909499672noreply@blogger.com