Vatican hypocrisy

[12th Doctor]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You obviously didn't read this too clearly.  Allow me to quote it for you:

This is often forgotten by Catholics themselves, and therefore it is not surprising that those who are not Catholic often have a completely wrong conception of Catholic devotion to the Mother of God. They imagine, and sometimes we can understand their reasons for doing so, that Catholics treat the Blessed Virgin as an almost divine being in her own right, as if she had some glory, some power, some majesty of her own that placed her on a level with Christ Himself. They regard the Assumption of Mary into heaven as a kind of apotheosis placed in the Redemption would seem to be equal to that of her Son.  But this is all completely contrary to the true mind of the Catholic Church. It forgets that Mary's chief glory is in her nothingness, in the fact of being the "Handmaid of the Lord," as one who in becoming the Mother of God acted simply in loving submission to His command, in the pure obedience of faith. She is blessed not because of some mythical pseudo-divine prerogative, but in all her human and womanly limitations as one who has believed.  It is the faith and the fidelity of this humble handmaid, "full of grace" that enables her to be the perfect instrument of God, and nothing else but His instrument. The work that was done in her purely the work of God.  The glory of Mary is purely and simply the glory of God in her.

Clearly, the possition of this article is that there is no glory in Mary, other than what is given her by God.  Mary is not a god and is not to be treated or prayed to as though she is a god.  I think you might be seriously misunderstanding the role of "intercession" which is not, I repeat not the work of Mary acting on the world, but rather the prayers of Mary to the Almighty, All Doing, All Knowing God.  Mary has no power of herself, and this has always been the Catholic possition.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Some of the things that Luther said were absolutely correct, and the Church corrected it's institutional errors based on those legitimat criticisms of Luther.  The reason I brought this up is because you seemed to be suggesting that faith alone is enough to bring grace, which is not the case.

[12th Doctor]

Heck, if you want something from Paul to rebuke your Paul based argument, how about this?

Romans 2:5-8

5
By your stubbornness and impenitent heart, you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God,
6
who will repay everyone according to his works:
7
eternal life to those who seek glory, honor, and immortality through perseverance in good works,
8
but wrath and fury to those who selfishly disobey the truth and obey wickedness.

Of course, there is a massive difference in conception between our understanding of the word, "work." To me, it means the outwardly reflection of the change brought by acceptance of Jesus as our saviour. But from what I read so far, in Catholicism, "work" means fulfilling conditions necessary to achieve salvation.

For example, one must be baptised in the Catholic church to even hope of not avoiding Hellfire.

Faith without works = "I can go to Cancun and whore around on Saturday night, but I still go to fellowship with my brothers on Sunday afternoon"

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

First off, the Catholic Church agknowledges that almost all Christian baptisms are legitimat, regardless of who performs them.  In our Church, a preist performs this act, because we think that a person should be baptised before the entire faith community.  We can do this now, because we aren't being hunted down by the Romans.

I am reminded of an episode of All in the Family when the Bunkers' daughter and Meathead didn't want to baptise their child, because they didn't go to Church.  Archie was out walking the baby, and he snuck into a church and baptised the baby himeself.  The Church would consider this a true baptism.

There are many things that we do in the Church that don't need to be done that way.  We simply prefer that they be done that way.

Second, as for the idea of "works" ever since Vatican II, there has been a clear understanding of the difference between sacraments, as we have them, and works as refered to in the Bible.  The Lutherans and the Catholics acctually called a conference together in the mid-1990's and we now totally agree on what this meaning.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Then who do you dedicate your Rosary to, and why?

1. Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the rosary, shall receive signal graces.

2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the rosary.

3. The rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

4. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the heart of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify them- selves by this means.

5. The soul which recommend itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish.

6. Whoever shall recite the rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.

7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.

8. Those who are faithful to recite the rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.

9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the rosary.

10. The faithful children of the rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in heaven.

11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary.

12. All those who propagate the holy rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.

13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.

14. All who recite the rosary are my son, and brothers of my only son Jesus Christ

16. Devotion of my rosary is a great sign of predestination.

The "promises of Mary" that I've highlighted in bold are so far removed from Christian belief they ought to be condemned right on the spot, seeing as how they all but admit that His resurrection was somehow "incomplete" and that we have to do more just to keep up.

[12th Doctor]

I was really interested in the meaning of that Greek word, charitoo, which in this tense Mary is forever filled.

Looking at the Strong's concordance, while that word does in fact mean "grace", it's in the sense of "highly favored," ... precisely because she was a pure blood member of the royal line of David .. not as full of some sort of "saving grace."

And it's not good to speculate that she was assumed into Heaven, the writer of Acts would have certainly mentioned the fact if she had been.

This word, until recent times, has always been interprited "grace", thus the fact that the Hail Mary, in every language, even Greek and Aramaic(sp) goes "Hail Mary, full of grace," when multiple translations and manipulations are possible.  In fact, the literal translation of the Hail Mary in French is quite different from that of the English, but the "full of Grace" remains.

As for your claim that Mary is not special in any way other than circumstance:

Rev 11&12

19
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant could be seen in the temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, and peals of thunder, an earthquake, and a violent hailstorm.

1
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.
2
She was with child and wailed aloud in pain as she labored to give birth.  
3
Then another sign appeared in the sky; it was a huge red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on its heads were seven diadems.
4
Its tail swept away a third of the stars in the sky and hurled them down to the earth. Then the dragon stood before the woman about to give birth, to devour her child when she gave birth.
5
She gave birth to a son, a male child, destined to rule all the nations with an iron rod. Her child was caught up to God and his throne.
6
The woman herself fled into the desert where she had a place prepared by God, that there she might be taken care of for twelve hundred and sixty days.
7
7 Then war broke out in heaven; Michael and his angels battled against the dragon. The dragon and its angels fought back,
8
but they did not prevail and there was no longer any place for them in heaven.
9
The huge dragon, the ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, who deceived the whole world, was thrown down to earth, and its angels were thrown down with it.
10
Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say: "Now have salvation and power come, and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Anointed. For the accuser of our brothers is cast out, who accuses them before our God day and night.
11
They conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony; love for life did not deter them from death.
12
Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you who dwell in them. But woe to you, earth and sea, for the Devil has come down to you in great fury, for he knows he has but a short time."
13
When the dragon saw that it had been thrown down to the earth, it pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child.
14
But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle, so that she could fly to her place in the desert, where, far from the serpent, she was taken care of for a year, two years, and a half-year.
15
The serpent, however, spewed a torrent of water out of his mouth after the woman to sweep her away with the current.
16
But the earth helped the woman and opened its mouth and swallowed the flood that the dragon spewed out of its mouth.
17
Then the dragon became angry with the woman and went off to wage war against the rest of her offspring, those who keep God's commandments and bear witness to Jesus.  
18
It took its position  on the sand of the sea.
---------------------------

Notice that there seems to be a direct connection between the woman and the ark.  Jesus is the New Covenant.  The Old Covenant was the 10 Commandments, correct?  Thus, Mary, the woman, is the ark of the New Covenant, as she is the one who bore Jesus.  Clearly, to the writters, this woman is very special.

In fact, every image of Mary that you see in a Catholic Church where see wears the crown of 12 stars (to represent the tribes and Apostles) and stepping on the serpant is taken directly from Revelation.

[The Duke]

I'm not going anywhere near the Supersoulty v Storebought argument, mostly because I have no idea what they're talking about at this point, I don't know nearly enough about Christianity.  If one of them tried to explain it to me, it would be like trying to teach a dog how to play chess.

That said, I think Joe is completely wrong when he argues that the Church's function is to provide material aid to the poor.  This is not the Catholic Church's only mission, in fact its not even their primary mission.  Their primary mission is to give spiritual fulfillment to their followers, and if having grand cathedrals like the Sistine Chapel or artifacts of immeasurable value like the Shroud of Turin, and beautiful paintings (with or without religious significance) help them to do this, then they have every right to do this, in fact it is their obligation to do this.

[12th Doctor]

Then who do you dedicate your Rosary to, and why?

1. Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the rosary, shall receive signal graces.

2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the rosary.

3. The rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies.

4. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the heart of men from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify them- selves by this means.

5. The soul which recommend itself to me by the recitation of the rosary, shall not perish.

6. Whoever shall recite the rosary devoutly, applying himself to the consideration of its sacred mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise him in His justice, he shall not by an unprovided death; if he be just he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life.

7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the rosary shall not die without the sacraments of the Church.

8. Those who are faithful to recite the rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plenitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the saints in paradise.

9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the rosary.

10. The faithful children of the rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in heaven.

11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the rosary.

12. All those who propagate the holy rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities.

13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death.

14. All who recite the rosary are my son, and brothers of my only son Jesus Christ

16. Devotion of my rosary is a great sign of predestination.

The "promises of Mary" that I've highlighted in bold are so far removed from Christian belief they ought to be condemned right on the spot, seeing as how they all but admit that His resurrection was somehow "incomplete" and that we have to do more just to keep up.

Sigh... this is only because of the belief we have in the strong intercessory role that Mary has.  Nothing more.  Joseph is also believed to have have this role, as is Peter and many others who were the holiests of the holy, so to speak.

As for the Rosary, there are prays to God in the rosary.  Perhaps you have never heard a Hail Mary.  It goes something like this.

"Hail Mary, full of grace.  The Lord is with thee.
Blessed are thou amounst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death.

[Storebought]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

Yes, and no.

Yes: The primitive church, early on, had to assume some form of organization in the face of state persecution. To claim otherwise is strawmanning nonsense. That the organization was based on ekklesia, led by deacons, presbyters, bishops (episkopoi), is also without doubt. Even the rawest Pentacostals admit that.

What I find dishonest about the Church, though is their appropriation of those names from the primitive church, and then applying them to more or less to infernal Roman secular governance. I know that basilicas, the Roman law courts run by Christian-killing opebos for centuries, suddenly, by the mid 200s, became the new sees of the Catholic Church!

The Roman Catholic church became corrupted when it began to function as the proxy state, long before Emperor Constantine hemmed and hawed on whether to make Christianity legal.

[12th Doctor]

I should probably consolidate some of these posts, but that would be awkward. Rather than pointlessly dragging out another page on this debate, I'll just link to two apologetic sites that list every argument you could ever make in favor of one's own religion and against the other person's.

Highlights:

1. Catholics list Protestants as being members of the Great Heresies

http://www.catholic.com/library/Great_Heresies.asp

and instructs its members on how to tutor them, as one tutors an ignorant Catholic, or as Soulty has been tutoring me. Though I can take cold comfort in that lay Catholics are instructed to talk to us, as opposed to just stomp us flat, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons.

2. For their part, the Evangelicals, as represented by Dr. John Ankerberg, debate points of Catholic theology so arcane I'm surprised people even remember them all:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-rc.htm

What is hilarious, though, is that Dr Ankerberg classes the Catholics with the Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses as an unbiblical heresy.

3. The layout of the two websites are so similar in content that I wonder if some clever agnostic hadn't invented them both, just to double the profit.

Ha... wow... you are off in space, somewhere.  Yes, I do us Catholic Answers, which is the site you are refering to.  Yes, they do instruct in Catholic apologetics.  And yes, they are absolutely for real.  I have been to see Dr. Scott Hahn, and many of the other people who are associated with this group.

I'm sorry that it has been so "Torturous" for you to here our veiw on this.  I feel so sorry for you, since it looks like you have brought a knife to a gun fight.

However, you seem to not grasp the meaning of the word "heresy".  Just because someone pratices a heresy does not mean they are "damned".  It only means that they believe something falsely.  Since the Protestant church preaches against Catholicism, it is only natural that, since we believe to be the true Church, what they practice is seen by us as being false.  Vatican II settled once and for all, the question of whether Protestant heresy is "damnable".  The answer is "no".

[12th Doctor]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

Yes, and no.

Yes: The primitive church, early on, had to assume some form of organization in the face of state persecution. To claim otherwise is strawmanning nonsense. That the organization was based on ekklesia, led by deacons, presbyters, bishops episkopoi, is also without doubt. Even the rawest Pentacostals admit that.

What I find dishonest about the Church, though is their appropriation of those names from the primitive church, and then applying them to more or less to infernal Roman secular governance. I know that basilicas, the Roman law courts run by Christian-killing opebos for centuries, suddenly, by the mid 200s, became the new sees of the Catholic Church!

The Roman Catholic church became corrupted when it began to function as the proxy state, long before Emperor Constantine hemmed and hawed on whether to make Christianity legal.

Christ's Church triumphed over their persecuters, completely.  Is this not what Christ predicted would happen?  Is this not what is accounted in Revelations?

[12th Doctor]

Oh, and about Acts... sure, it does not account for what happened to Mary, but nor does it account for what happened to almost all other figures we hear about in the Gospels either.  That's a pretty weak point.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strange, because when I was reading both sets of Apologia, the same kinds of argument strategies were advocated by both theologians. I guess you skipped Dr Ankerberg's 100+ arguments against every facet of Catholic thought, dogma, practice, ministry.

In other words, there is nothing particularly spectacular about any Hahn's tactics, seeing as how the Protestants have already learned them. In fact, for the most part, I find them tedious, since they skirt the primary issue I have against the Catholic Church:

Jesus's Death and Resurrection is not good enough for your salvation

All other Catholic practice -- papal infallibility, penance, indulgences, etc.-- are just consequences of that main crime.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I said T-U-T-O-R, not T-O-R-T-U-R-E. Putting words into my mouth, yet again. Grow up!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So what happened to those French Cathars, other heretics, from the 12th century? I imagine Pope Innocent III said many a prayer for them as his enforcers burned their towns and flayed them on the spot.

[Storebought]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

Yes, and no.

Yes: The primitive church, early on, had to assume some form of organization in the face of state persecution. To claim otherwise is strawmanning nonsense. That the organization was based on ekklesia, led by deacons, presbyters, bishops episkopoi, is also without doubt. Even the rawest Pentacostals admit that.

What I find dishonest about the Church, though is their appropriation of those names from the primitive church, and then applying them to more or less to infernal Roman secular governance. I know that basilicas, the Roman law courts run by Christian-killing opebos for centuries, suddenly, by the mid 200s, became the new sees of the Catholic Church!

The Roman Catholic church became corrupted when it began to function as the proxy state, long before Emperor Constantine hemmed and hawed on whether to make Christianity legal.

Christ's Church triumphed over their persecuters, completely.  Is this not what Christ predicted would happen?  Is this not what is accounted in Revelations?

If by "triumph", you mean, "a second Roman state, but without a standing army", then, still no...the Catholic Church, as it became in the 500s or so, was pretty weak besides, and depended on the graces of a warlord for protection.

But, no, that's the furthest I will go to disparage as ancient an institution as that. I'm disgracing myself by entertaining you -- and I know that, even with its strange dogmas, it is much less hysterical than you present it to be.

[12th Doctor]

Strange, because when I was reading both sets of Apologia, the same kinds of argument strategies were advocated by both theologians. I guess you skipped Dr Ankerberg's 100+ arguments against every facet of Catholic thought, dogma, practice, ministry.

Good for him.  Kinda strange that he thinks every Catholic thought is wrong.  Could that be because he is an unrational bigot, like you?  That might be the case.  I certainly have looked into it, and his points are generally clumsy at best.  However, I am glad that you have found a cave to hide in, in your effort to avoid acctually attempting to refute any of the points I mentioned.  "You can run, but you can't hide".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It accepting that was all that was needed, then why exactly did Paul bother to write all those letters to clearify all that other stuff?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The only crime here is your ignorance.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sorry, I guess I just saw how you were acting, and that some how affected my vision in other areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That has about as much realivancey to what we are talking about as a coconut does to Russia.

[12th Doctor]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

Yes, and no.

Yes: The primitive church, early on, had to assume some form of organization in the face of state persecution. To claim otherwise is strawmanning nonsense. That the organization was based on ekklesia, led by deacons, presbyters, bishops episkopoi, is also without doubt. Even the rawest Pentacostals admit that.

What I find dishonest about the Church, though is their appropriation of those names from the primitive church, and then applying them to more or less to infernal Roman secular governance. I know that basilicas, the Roman law courts run by Christian-killing opebos for centuries, suddenly, by the mid 200s, became the new sees of the Catholic Church!

The Roman Catholic church became corrupted when it began to function as the proxy state, long before Emperor Constantine hemmed and hawed on whether to make Christianity legal.

Christ's Church triumphed over their persecuters, completely.  Is this not what Christ predicted would happen?  Is this not what is accounted in Revelations?

If by "triumph", you mean, "a second Roman state, but without a standing army", then, still no...the Catholic Church, as it became in the 500s or so, was pretty weak besides, and depended on the graces of a warlord for protection.

But, no, that's the furthest I will go to disparage as ancient an institution as that. I'm disgracing myself by entertaining you -- and I know that, even with its strange dogmas, it is much less hysterical than you present it to be.

Thanks again for ignoring another opportunity to engage me in a real discussion of the issues.

[12th Doctor]

Also, as a note Ankerberg's arguments generally rely on the typical anti-Catholic strategy of targeting a few Bible versus and taking them wildly out of context.

[Storebought]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

Yes, and no.

Yes: The primitive church, early on, had to assume some form of organization in the face of state persecution. To claim otherwise is strawmanning nonsense. That the organization was based on ekklesia, led by deacons, presbyters, bishops episkopoi, is also without doubt. Even the rawest Pentacostals admit that.

What I find dishonest about the Church, though is their appropriation of those names from the primitive church, and then applying them to more or less to infernal Roman secular governance. I know that basilicas, the Roman law courts run by Christian-killing opebos for centuries, suddenly, by the mid 200s, became the new sees of the Catholic Church!

The Roman Catholic church became corrupted when it began to function as the proxy state, long before Emperor Constantine hemmed and hawed on whether to make Christianity legal.

Christ's Church triumphed over their persecuters, completely.  Is this not what Christ predicted would happen?  Is this not what is accounted in Revelations?

If by "triumph", you mean, "a second Roman state, but without a standing army", then, still no...the Catholic Church, as it became in the 500s or so, was pretty weak besides, and depended on the graces of a warlord for protection.

But, no, that's the furthest I will go to disparage as ancient an institution as that. I'm disgracing myself by entertaining you -- and I know that, even with its strange dogmas, it is much less hysterical than you present it to be.

Thanks again for ignoring another opportunity to engage me in a real discussion of the issues.

Oh, not at all!

I've found some great websites on Catholic doctrine, including the 1992 Catechism. Reading those have been deeply stimulating, and have provided intellectual stimulation (the real reason why Catholic churches have statuary, etc.)

And on Dr. Ankerberg: Of course he quotes only Scripture! By his faith, that's the only source that has authenticity.

Except you're a fanatic. And a bore. I'm done with you.

[12th Doctor]

Debating the role of the sacraments in the Catholic church is a research topic itself. From the Catholic Encyclopedia definition of the Sacrament, they argue that the basis of the seven sacraments lies with Tradition, as well as the Bible (I can honestly tell you, arguing on Tradition is as pointless as me trying to quote Luther to you). Not to mention the heavy priest-oriented nature.

Whoever you heard that Aquinas used only tradition to form the sacraments from is terribly misleading you.  First off, the sacraments, all of them, were firmly in place centuries before Aquinas was even born, so I don't know why you site him, in particular. 

I cited Aquinas because the Catechism cited Aquinas.

Aquinas established the philosophical basis for the sacraments, as we currently understand them.  My point is that, on some of the sacraments, I can go all the way back to 110 A.D. and quote for you what the early mainsteam Christians view was on the sacraments.  You say tradition does not matter to you, what about tradition that is scourced back at least that far?  Does that mean anything to you?  Or do you honestly think that mainstream Christianity became currupted that soon after the age of the Apostles?  If you believe that, then we have a whole other issue to debate here, and that is what Jesus said about His Church.

Yes, and no.

Yes: The primitive church, early on, had to assume some form of organization in the face of state persecution. To claim otherwise is strawmanning nonsense. That the organization was based on ekklesia, led by deacons, presbyters, bishops episkopoi, is also without doubt. Even the rawest Pentacostals admit that.

What I find dishonest about the Church, though is their appropriation of those names from the primitive church, and then applying them to more or less to infernal Roman secular governance. I know that basilicas, the Roman law courts run by Christian-killing opebos for centuries, suddenly, by the mid 200s, became the new sees of the Catholic Church!

The Roman Catholic church became corrupted when it began to function as the proxy state, long before Emperor Constantine hemmed and hawed on whether to make Christianity legal.

Christ's Church triumphed over their persecuters, completely.  Is this not what Christ predicted would happen?  Is this not what is accounted in Revelations?

If by "triumph", you mean, "a second Roman state, but without a standing army", then, still no...the Catholic Church, as it became in the 500s or so, was pretty weak besides, and depended on the graces of a warlord for protection.

But, no, that's the furthest I will go to disparage as ancient an institution as that. I'm disgracing myself by entertaining you -- and I know that, even with its strange dogmas, it is much less hysterical than you present it to be.

Thanks again for ignoring another opportunity to engage me in a real discussion of the issues.

Oh, not at all!

I've found some great websites on Catholic doctrine, including the 1992 Catechism. Reading those have been deeply stimulating, and have provided intellectual stimulation (the real reason why Catholic churches have statuary, etc.)

And on Dr. Ankerberg: Of course he quotes only Scripture! By his faith, that's the only source that has authenticity.

Except you're a fanatic. And a bore. I'm done with you.

A fanatic of what, exactly.  I'm not the one here preaching that everything the other side preaches is evil. 

And, you clearly didn't read what I said about your friend Dr. A.  I said, he quotes a few versus of scripture and takes them wildly out of context.  Any idiot can quote scripture.  That doesn't mean that you understand it.

So, please grant me some of your prescious wisdom, oh Teacher, why does the evil Catholic Churches have statuary?

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, pinhead, I'll spell it out to you in monosyllabic, oops, I mean, "short" terms

1. I do not hate the institution of Church, or its members, or its "works" -- I donated to the Catholic Charities during Katrina
2. I dislike most of it's dogma, but as a Catholic, you are free to believe what you will. Furthermore, I am free to dislike Catholic dogma, too.
3. Now, what I find abominable is any effort to try to seperate mankind from the only thing that keeps our souls out from Hell, namely, an acceptance that Jesus Christ is Our King, with no co-ruling Mediatrix, nor with any earthly Magesterium to dictate to us, since it is our souls at stake, not theirs, what prayers we need to recite every day to hope .. hope .. hope ... but never know ... that we will receive God's grace.

Just contrast:

Prayer to be Said Every Day to Obtain the Graces Necessary for Salvation, by St. Alphonsus

Eternal Father, Thy Son has promised that Thou wilt grant us all the graces which we ask Thee for in His name. In the name, therefore, and by the merits of Jesus Christ, I ask the following graces for myself and for all mankind:

And first, I pray Thee to give me a lively faith in all that the holy Roman Church teaches me. Enlighten me also, that I may know the vanity of the goods of this world, and the immensity of the Infinite Good that Thou art; make me also see the deformity of the sins I have committed, that I may humble myself and detest them as I ought; and, on the other hand, show me how worthy Thou art, by reason of Thy goodness, that I should love Thee with all my heart. Make me know also the love Thou has borne me, that from this day forward I may try to be grateful for so much goodness.

Secondly, give me a firm confidence in Thy mercy of receiving the pardon of my sins, holy perseverance, and, finally, the glory of paradise, through the merits of Jesus Christ and the intercession of Mary.

Thirdly, give me a great love toward Thee, which shall detach me from the love of this world and of myself, so that I may love none other but Thee, and that I may neither do nor desire anything else but what is for Thy glory.

Fourthly, I beg of Thee a perfect resignation to Thy will, in accepting with tranquility sorrows, infirmities, contempt, persecutions, aridity of spirit, loss of property, of esteem, of relations, and every other cross which shall come to me from Thy hands. I offer myself entirely to Thee, that thou mayest do with me, and all that belongs to me, what thou pleasest; do Thou only give me light and strength to do Thy will, and, especially at the hour of death, help me to sacrifice my life to Thee with all the affection I am capable of, in union with the sacrifice which Thy Son Jesus Christ made of His life on the cross of Calvary.

Fifthly, I beg of Thee a great sorrow for my sins, which may make me grieve over them as long as I live, and weep for the insults I have offered Thee, the Sovereign Good, who art worthy of infinite love, and who hast loved me so much.

Sixthly, I pray Thee to give me the spirit of true humility and meekness, that I may accept with peace, and even with joy, all the contempt, ingratitude and ill-treatment that I may receive. At the same time I also pray Thee to give me perfect charity, which shall make me wish well to those who have done evel to me, and to do what good I can, at least by praying, for those who have in any way injured me.

Seventhly, I beg of Thee to give me a love for the virtue of holy mortification, by which I may chastise my rebellious senses, and cross my self-love; at the same time I beg Thee to give me holy purity of body, and the grace to resist all bad temptations, by ever having recourse to Thee and Thy most Holy Mother.

Give me the grace faithfully to obey my spiritual father and all my superiors in all things. Give me an upright intention, that in all I desire and do I may seek only Thy glory, and to please Thee alone. Give me a great confidence in the Passion of Jesus Christ, and in the intercession of Mary Immaculate. Give me a great love toward the most Adorable Sacrament of the Altar, and a tender devotion and love to Thy Holy Mother. Give me, I pray Thee, above all, holy perseverance, and the grace always to pray for it, especially in time of temptation and at the hour of death.

Lastly, I recommend to Thee the holy souls in Purgatory, my relations and benefactors; and in an especial manner I recommend to Thee all those who hate me, or who have in any way offended me; I beg of Thee to render them good for the evil they have done, or may wish to do me. I also recommend to Thee all infidels, heretics, and all poor sinners; give them light and strength to deliver themselves from sin. O, most loving God, make Thyself known and loved by all, but especially by those who have been more ungrateful to Thee than others, so that by Thy goodness I may come one day to sing Thy mercies in paradise; for my hope is in the merits of Thy Blood, and in the patronage of Mary. O Mary, Mother of God, pray to Jesus for me! So I hope; so may it be!

To this:

I know that my Redeemer liveth!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[12th Doctor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ok, pinhead, I'll spell it out to you in monosyllabic, oops, I mean, "short" terms

I am 100% certain that you used the word "evil" to discribe the institutions and possitions of the Church at least once.  However, you appear to have edited a couple of you posts.  I know it, at least, was there, so I'm not going to bother spending any more time to try to find it.

And, BTW, how is speaking in "short terms" going to be any different from what you have been doing the whole time?  You haven't presented a single complex argument.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Could have fooled me.  You certainly seem to think that the Church is doing "evil things" by "seperating people" from Christ.  As for your charity donations, I certainly applude you for them.  I have nothing to say, other than good things about that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, fine.  Do you have to attack it, though?  I'm not the one who came out swinging, here.  In fact, in the statement that I made, which I said I regreted, I defended several churches, Catholic and Protestant, and would continue to do the same, so long as they don't become agressive against our Church.  Then, I simply have no choice but to respond.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How did you first heat about Jesus?  Did he just present himself to you, and say "follow me"?  I think not.  You found out about him because of all these institutions which supposedly do nothing but "seperate you" from him.  Christ is Our King.  No one disputes that.  Yet, you continue to bring it up as though the Catholic Church objects to that idea.

As for God's grace, are you certain that you have received it?  The Church only asks us to follow God's commandments in the hope that we will achieve his saving grace.  No one knows how it works, exactly, but Jesus and the Apostles left us some ideas, and we in the Catholic Church believe that we should follow those ideas.

You never answered my question:

"If Jesus's death and resurection for us was all we had to believe in order to achieve salvation, then why did Paul spend so much time clearifying all that other stuff.  Why did he not simply wirte every Church and tell them "Believe that Christ is your Savior.  It is all you need to know".  Never once does he say that.  In fact, all the evidence points away from that direction.  Yes, that belief is important, but it is only the first step, not the last.  Paul wanted people to live Christian lives, and if there is a Christian Life, then there must be guildlines to living.

Just contrast:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who in the Hell says that, and who says it is nessesary for salvation?  I have never even seen that prayer in my life, let alone used it.  I would like to know you scource for this.

Not only that, but there is no regulation in the Catholic Church to how we must pray, and there never has been.  There are simply normal prays.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't had the time to memorize other people's complex arguments.

But if you want complex arguments against your belief system, then try Calvin's Institutes. It's as lucidly presented, and completely un-Biblebanging -- he even freely quotes Augustine, the most Catholic of the early church doctors. Not that his words are taken as Scripture, but he does argue them convincingly.

I admit: I don't have his felicity for argument. Then again, he didn't have a quantum mechanics exam at 8 am today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From Calvin:

We formerly observed, that though God, by supplying an uninterrupted succession of prophets, never left his people destitute of useful doctrine, such as might suffice for salvation; yet the minds of believers were always impressed with the conviction that the full light of understanding was to be expected only on the advent of the Messiah

"I know that Messiah cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things," (John 4: 25.)

When I was little, it was my grandmother, who was a Lutheran, who talked like that, as Jesus was right there. My own Baptist church, though was as formulaic, in its own way, as what Calvin says the Catholics are. Which is why I'm not a Baptist.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If I were an Ankerberg, which I am not, I would say that that's the saddest thing a Christian could ever say (in bold text). Your own Church says words and performes rites, but doesn't offer its believers the truth. As to my source, Eph. 2., which you know already (the reason why I don't blast Scripture at you), but is buried underneath traditon.

As to Paul's theology, as the head of a scattered church, he had the obligation to teach his followers the central mystery of Jesus's life on earth, and to keep the Jewish converts and the Greek converts from tearing each other apart over different traditions. Not to mention, Paul also set the standard on how to use Scripture (the Old Testament without the Apocrypha, as the Jews then never considered it inspired) to verify what he taught. 


Just contrast:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/prayer.php?p=193

Look under: Prayers for Salvation

[12th Doctor]

I haven't had the time to memorize other people's complex arguments.

Forgive me for using the thoughts of the Church to defend the Church.  I'm sure that is revolutionary idea.  Anyway, these arguments are mine just as much as the are anyone elses, since I have verified them, myself, and did not ever once directly quote anyone else in the course of this discussion.

Basically, I have spent the time to think about this, and you want to portray me as being a cheat because of it.  That's fine, I suppose, but make sure that not a single unorginal argument comes out of your mouth, if you want to stay consistant in this area.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I welcome the quotation of scripture.  I find it odd that it is the basis of your argument, when you have quoted so little of it, and I have quoted so much.  Anyway, I've been to this site before, and, if given time to research, am confident I can refute any of their arguments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not my fault you went off half-cocked.  That doesn't bother me, though.  What bothers me is that, throughout this debate, when you didn't know something, you just sliped into some montra about the Church in general, or the mistakes of it's memebers, (ie your thing about the Cathars).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you are suggesting that the fullfillment of knowledge came with Christ, and thus, what the Church claims as knowledge is not true.

Once again, you seem to be opperating on a false premise, by thinking that the Catholic Church does not believe that Christ is the fullfillment of all things.  However, just because Christ fullfilled all things does not mean that people on Earth do not need guidance to understnad this message.  That is the role of the Church, to bring people to Christ and provide a faith community that has the ability to keep people close to Christ.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why is it so sad to ask that question (BTW, I hate it when people say things like "if I were" to disguise the fact that this is what they think)?

Jesus tells us (Mt 24:13):

11
Many false prophets will arise and deceive many;
12
and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold.
13
But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

Paul tells us (Romans 11:22)

22
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

There is no assurance to salvation for anyone.  I only ask that question, because you said that what the Church does in trying to bring salvation to people is wrong.  Does that mean that the Catholic Church is the only road to salvation?  No, the Catholic Church doesn't even believe it is the "road to salvation", only that what we do assists others in doing what God asks of us, and, in so doing, bring hope for God's grace.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, telling people that Jesus is the Lord and Savior does not bring truth to people?  Our Church offers lots of Truth.  I find it personally offensive that you seem to think that it doesn't, when I certainly think that almost all Christian churches offer truth to their memebrs.  I don't care if you agree with everything we do, but you seem to think that the Church is the anti-Christ, and before you go off on that, the anti-Christ is that which brings people away from Christ by offering a flase Messiah, which you certainly believe the Church does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First off, there was no difinative listing of inspired books coming from the Jewish authorities, and claims to the contrary are false.  The Jews didn't assemble a difinative list until after the death of Jesus and Jesus and the apostles quoted freely from many of the Protestant Apocrypha.

Second, why do you not see this as the role of the Church today?  There are still conflicts of faith, so all of this still applies, and Paul was clearly addressing issues that go beyond simple belief in Jesus as Lord and Savior.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many beautiful prays have been written by many people.  The prayer of St. Patrick, for instance.  These prayers are not required, in any sense of the word, for anyone's salvation.

[12th Doctor]

Also, a point I thought of while I was in the shower:

You seem to have a negative opinion of my arguments, because they come from Catholic Answers.  This seems to indicate to me that you think that the Catholic Church came up with these ideas out of no where, and then after the fact, some apologetics group came along and decided to find scriptural reasons for these random Catholci possitions so that you could convert all your heathen friends by beating them at their own game.  Do you not realize that these are the points that I, and Catholic Answers use, because this was the reason the Church adopted the possitions it did?  I think you are putting the cart before the horse here, or, at least, you seem to think that is what we have done.

Also, I find your belief in the insincerity of Catholic Apologetics rather angering.

[Storebought]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why are you even a Catholic? It's a serious question.

Just as Augustine could say that, if it weren't for the support of the Church, he would not accept the Gospels, then I can ask you: Why is anyone a Catholic if you can seriously entertain that notion?

[Storebought]

Also, a point I thought of while I was in the shower:

You seem to have a negative opinion of my arguments, because they come from Catholic Answers.  This seems to indicate to me that you think that the Catholic Church came up with these ideas out of no where, and then after the fact, some apologetics group came along and decided to find scriptural reasons for these random Catholci possitions so that you could convert all your heathen friends by beating them at their own game.  Do you not realize that these are the points that I, and Catholic Answers use, because this was the reason the Church adopted the possitions it did?  I think you are putting the cart before the horse here, or, at least, you seem to think that is what we have done.

Also, I find your belief in the insincerity of Catholic Apologetics rather angering.

Because I am a skeptic and I tend to rummage past a lot of websites, books, articles, etc., even if they seem to support my own opinion, because I must be certain that they aren't the words of cranks. Just like I found that Ankerberg site and rejected it (because of its nitpicking disputatious nature -- I don't have a million major faults with the Church, only a handful or so), so too I would expect you to use some discretion, too, and not find the most hostile Catholic site, as mentioned before, this side of Opus Dei

[Storebought]

Recounting this entire thread, I could count 14 real objections to what you had to say.

1. Mary as Mother of God because she was "Full of grace"

The Greek word for grace, when referred to Mary, is not the same etymological word when spoken of in verses as Rom 5

[15]But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace (charis), which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many
[16] And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
[17] For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
[18] Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

Grace comes from Jesus's sacrifice alone, what I repeated to you again and again.

When grace refers to Mary, the word simply is a warm greeting from the messenger to the earthly virgin mother of Jesus, with none such other meaning.

Now, to produce the "grace" seen in the Catholic church, involves this, from the Catechism:

Mary's role in the Church is inseparable from her union with Christ and flows directly from it. "This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death";502 it is made manifest above all at the hour of his Passion:

Thus the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross. There she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, joining herself with his sacrifice in her mother's heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim, born of her: to be given, by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross, as a mother to his disciple, with these words: "Woman, behold your son."503
965 After her Son's Ascension, Mary "aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers."504 In her association with the apostles and several women, "we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation."505

References 503-505 of course not referring to Scripture.

2. Consequently, the idea of an Ascension into heaven is pure tradition as well, considering that the last Scriptural reference to her, in Acts,

[13]And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

mentions her specifically as mother of Jesus, and none of the other formulae devised by the Church.

3. I've reread your deceptive use of John:

[23]whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

to bolster the idea of intercession of the saints. Even as I was thinking on it, the idea, offered by J-Mann by the way, that saints are heavenly prayer group, sounded more and more plausible until I reread that passage to discover that you neglected the fact that it is Jesus himself doing the intercessing! No reformed Christian would dare confuse that intercession with the Catholics'.

Furthermore, in Romans

[24] For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
[25] But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
[26] Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
[27] And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
[28] And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

note that the Holy Spirit is doing the intercessing for the saints, meaning the holy ones. The Spirit does the intercession, because He is The Lord.

And

[34]Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

Again: Christ, The Son, does intercession for us in Heaven, not saints.

I will  continue a little later