Saturday, August 30, 2008

Recent Post Summary

Below I unloaded a few weeks worth of apologetic futility with my friend. The futility lies in said friends fierce unwillingness to even ponder one single Catholic postion, based (even) solely on scriptural meaning. The only time he backs down in a receptive posture always leads to him pleading to get me to study Romans with him, which as you should know, is where Luther inserted the word"alone" where it was never written by divine revelation. My posture might be viewed here by some readers as non ecumenical...and it has to be with this particular individual as he views "interfaith" as a wound to manipulate into his sola scriptura Calvinist bent.

Much work has to be done on his end with the approach to an open mind....I dont see it happening...

-Peace

Blessed Mary's Interpreter is a Protestant

This post is uncategorized as by now you can view how the a-C degrades into generalizing Catholicism across the spectrum of perceived issues. Can you imagine, attempting seriously, with firm conscience to Form a Catholic Faith practice while having a Fundamentalist aggressively attack your faith like this:

(a-C writes):

JP3 claimed that Mary was his savior when he was shot, his view of Mary is far and above that of simply a departed Saint, she was actively involved in his life and responsible for aspects of his life….She was responsible for his protection, she was responsible for saving his life….He wore her initials on his clothes and so on and so on.

What Catholics do with Mary is wrong…I don’t have to defend it against your definition of worship. The reality is that it is wrong. Wether you call them worship or not is ridiculous…to say that I don’t understand why Catholics do what -they do is ridiculous…but even more decieiving is to laugh and say….see,,,,,I told you this Is not worship is silly….what ever name you give these is blasphemous against scripture.

We don’t need someone to intercede for us

God does not need assistants to bring our requests to him

Even if he did, scripture does not distinguish assistants.

Full of Grace is used of other in scripture

No one participated in our atonement NO ONE>>>>>>FOR HE MADE HIM WHO KNEW NO SIN TO BE SIN FOR US, THAT WE MIGHT BECOME THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM

NOT IN THEM!

We don’t need one to pray for us at the hour of our death (at the instant of death believers go to heaven to be with the Lord (2 Thes) why do I need her to pray for me….deceived Roman Catholics do not go to purgatory, they perish in hell eternally, Mary praying will be of no avail)

We don’t pray in vein repetition TO GOD OR TO ANYONE

Statues and images of Mary are bowed down to around the world and prayers are offered to her directly

Idols are sold by the millions every year with her as a pendant on woman

Mary was a servant of God to bring about the fulfillment of our Mesiah…John the Baptist was declared to be above all other Men…let’s carve a statue to him and light candles and pray to him!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! while were at it, think of the take if we make one’s for money boxes and kneeling to all the popes….Oh I guess my thoughts are old news…that is what the Vatican did

You think it intellectual to ignore the substance of what is said and hang on a term and its definition that this is not defined as this term or that term and declare that one is misinformed and that the activity is not actually this term or that term…who cares what term you call it…..term it what you will, it is misleading and leading people down a path that is wrong….sounds like the boys are at it as well with the murders of the inquisition

Mary would detest what Catholocism does with her…God would do the same to Catholics he did with the apostles when Peter asked our Lord at the transfiguration if they should build a memorial to Moses or Elijah………………God thundered from Heaven and declared…this is my beloved son LISTEN TO HIM

I really have no agenda but to study the word with you, as the bible calls me to teach faithful men who will teach others also…to that end I extend myself to you.


-a-C

Dave responds:

You have Disrespect for the Mother of God?
Good Luck with that my friend, let me know how that works out for you.

Its unfortunate that you keep insisting on putting words in other peoples mouths, like:

"You think it intellectual to ignore the substance of what is said...."
Thats incorrect. You cannot assert your speculation into others minds.

"Mary would detest what Catholocism does with her…"
Now you are saying you are clairvoyant and have communicated with Mary and know her feelings about Catholicism? Quite pompous.

"I really have no agenda but to study the word with you,"
Thats not how you come across below now...is it?

It is you that are esteeming yourself as all knowing about Catholicism and when I reveal Biblical reference for each questioned doctrine (IE. you say "…who cares what term you call it") you twist the meaning into what it is not or get all emotional and avoid the meaning altogether.

I cant find any value in your dictatorial approach to your interpretation of the Word. As I have asked you before but you ignored, there is no balance with you. I have read Sprouls, Johnny MacArthur, listened to over 100 hours of Allister Beggs preaching (at your request) and find value and truth there, as well as the RCC. When I ask for your sincere effort on the RCC information I provide...You ignore the Catholic side of the information I bring to substantiate truth in the RCC teaching. No Balance. Its all about you.

As a successful Sales Executive, how would you think this ignorance of the biblical facts I present would ever lead me to listen to you when I have proven your perspective on the Catholic Faith to be misinformed?

-Dave

(a-C responds):

This is ridiculous



UNCLE



Just go line by line in the body of my email…say understood, I affirm or something…I spent the time to type it…what do you summarize as disrespectful

It does not do anygood to respond to a comment, but only say, putting words…that is exactly what you are doing here, I am not asserting anything in anothers mind…I can reason as to what is happening when one ignores the content of what is said and declares that the definition of a term is incorrect and misapplied…ARE ALL THESE ACTIVITIES THAT I HAVE SPELLED OUT DISHONORING…you don’t address them

The bible is clear Hebrews, acts, and many examples in Rev that it was clear that no one wanted to be the object of adiration…they pointed people to the Lord…I am not clarvoayant, I have said that scripture leads me to this

GO POINT BY POINT AND TELL ME THAT THIS IS NOT DISHONORNING AND AGAINST SCRIPTURES IN WHAT I SAID

IT is how I come across, and if you met to go thru scripture you THEN would be able to affirm that, but not from WHAT YOU THINK YOU READ INTO what I type…only that will reveal it.

What biblical facts have you GIVEN ON ANY OF THESE POINTS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NONE_____________))))))))))))))))))) SO IF NONE HAVE BENN GIVEN, NONE HAVE BEEN IGNORED…..WHAT BIBLICAL SUPPORT IS THERE FOR ANY OF THESE THINGS ………………………….. I WILL NOT IGNORE THEM…FULL OF GRACE IS ALL THAT YOU HAVE CONVEYED AND YOU HAVE FAILED TO ADDRESS STEPHEN OR JOHN THE BAPTIST…NONE HAVE BEEN IGNORED

-a-C


I have given specific biblical support as documented here and sent to him....he ignores it or renames it as tradition even Rev. 12:1-6.
I have another line item specific summary and produced it here with restraint of repetition.

More Inquisition Madness

The a-C and I conversed (verbally) where I asked him to cite factually where the RCC or Pope or both instigated and caused a certain Christians execution. I told him I wasnt going to split hairs....that is....if the RCC is shown as a major supporter of such execution, and not held by the "State" to identify Heretics under duress, that would be sufficient for me to consider his broad view of the Crusades as Catholics being willfully aligned with Satan. See below for how the conversation continued and who may be on a path of historical truth.

(Dave writes to a-C):



William Tyndale was not executed by the Catholic Church or a Catholic at all. He published a criticism of the King and was held accountable for it:

" In 1530, he (Tyndale) wrote The Practyse of Prelates, opposing Henry VIII's divorce on the grounds that it was unscriptural and was a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts. This resulted in the king's wrath being directed at him: he asked the emperor Charles V to have Tyndale apprehended and returned to England "

Where do get your eroneous info on this stuff?

-Dave

(a-C responds):


THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ASKED THE KING TO PAY AN INDULGENCE TO THE CHURCH TO ALLOW FOR THE ANULEMENT OF THE MARRIAGE AND IT WAS ALL TIED INTO TOGETHER…YOU THINK YOURSELF TO HAVE RESEARCHED SOMEHTING WHEN YOU FIND SOMETHING TYPED BY YOUR CULT EXPLAINING AWAY AN ASPECT…YOU ARE DECEEIVE BY YOUR SELF DECEPTION OF WIT MY FRIEND….THIS DOES NOT A RESEARCHER MAKE, THE INQUISITION WAS NOTHING OF CATHOLICSIM I SUSPECT YOU WILL BE FULLY CONVINCED OF THAT BY SOME STRANGE DUDE IN A FUNNY COLLAR WITH A POMPAS ROBE….

UNCLE

YOU ARE BEYOND MY REACH

Your blood be on your own head, my warnings clear me my friend…turn from this incidious cult and trust in my Lord and my savior Jesus Christ

May our Lord bless you with understanding what he has revealed about himself in his infallible word of God…


-a-C


Dave responds:


I qouted a secular history encyclopedia, not a Catholic take or source or bent. Your take is false and should embarrass you. See how your Bias leads you to error? These are historical facts not Catholic Facts. Research is not opinion. Black and white facts.

There was no "indulgences paid" (such a thing has never been the official practice...its a myth)
See the bold below. Henry VIII sued for anulment based on an idea of a false papal bull, which was never granted, even though the Pope was a prisoner of Katherines Nephew.

"In 1525, Henry VIII became enamoured with Anne Boleyn, a maid-of-honour to the Queen, and began his pursuit of her.[3] By this time Katherine was not in a physical condition to undergo further pregnancies. Henry began to believe that his marriage was cursed and sought confirmation from the Bible, which says that if a man marries his brother's wife, the couple will be childless.[4] If she had lied when she said her marriage to Arthur had not been consummated, it meant that their marriage was wrong in the eyes of God. It is possible that the idea of annulment had suggested itself to the King much earlier than this, and it is highly probable that it was motivated by his desire for a male heir. Before Henry's father Henry VII ascended the throne, England had been beset by civil warfare over rival claims to the English crown and Henry may have wanted to avoid a similar uncertainty over the succession.[5]

It soon became the one absorbing object of the King's desires to secure an annulment.[6] He set his hopes upon a direct appeal to the Holy See, acting independently of Thomas Cardinal Wolsey, to whom he at first communicated nothing of his plans. William Knight, the king's secretary, was sent to Pope Clement VII to sue for the annulment of the marriage, on the ground that the dispensing bull of Pope Julius II was obtained by false pretences.

As the pope was at that time the prisoner of Katherine's nephew, Emperor Charles V, Knight had some difficulty in obtaining access to him. In the end the king's envoy had to return without accomplishing much. Henry had now no choice but to put his great matter into the hands of Thomas Wolsey, and Wolsey did all he could to secure a decision in the King's favour.[7] How far the pope was influenced by Charles V in his resistance, it is difficult to say, but it is clear Henry saw that the Pope was unlikely to give him an annulment from the Emperor's aunt.[8] The pope forbade Henry to proceed to a new marriage before a decision was given in Rome . Wolsey had failed and he was dismissed from public office in 1529. He then began a secret plot to have Boleyn forced into exile and he began communication with Katherine and the Pope, to that end. When this was discovered, Henry ordered Wolsey's arrest and had it not been for his death from a terminal illness in 1530, he might have been executed for treason.[9] A year later, Katherine was banished from court and her old rooms were given to Boleyn. When Archbishop of Canterbury William Warham died, the Boleyn family's chaplain, Thomas Cranmer, was appointed to the vacant position.[10] In November 1531, Katherine wrote to her nephew: "My tribulations are so great, my life so disturbed by the plans daily invented to further the king's wicked intention, the surprises which the king gives me, with certain persons of his council, are so mortal, and my treatment is what God knows, that it is enough to shorten ten lives, much more mine".

-Dave

(a-C responds):

Myth

Perhaps I should obtain a $5,000 check paid by a friend of my brothers to obtain this anulement, would that correct your dilusion

Your understanding of catholocisms influence over all these matters and the matter of wealth and papal wealth associated with all of this stuff is not reflected here. I will be glad to forward you the proper perspective…but it goes back to what you were saying last night that you were hinting that you objected to, about the distance the church is from the government official…The church would have encouraged the king to put him to death in accordance with their standing…

-a-C

Did Calvin play a role in Servetus execution?

Karl Keating @ Catholic Answers has written that this is true. In my debate with the a-C on the instigation, culpability and guilt professed by Protestants that Catholics/Rome created Christian Martyrdom during the Crusades, I mailed the a-C the following summary of Calvins involvement published by one Reformist Encyclopedia (citation ^ John Marshall, John Locke, Toleration and Early Enlightenment Culture (Cambridge Studies in Early Modern British History), Cambridge University Press, 2006, ISBN 0-521-65114-X p. 325).

(Dave writes to a-C):
Servetus, a theologian and follower of Calvin and close personal friend of Calvin, was publishing non-trinitarian theology....John Calvin had him executed.

Heres an excerpt from a Reformist History encyclopedia from 1553:

When Calvin requested that Servetus be executed by decapitation rather than fire, Farel, in a letter of September 8, chided him for undue lenity, On 27 October 1553 Servetus was burned at the stake just outside Geneva with what was believed to be the last copy of his
book chained to his leg. Historians record his last words as: "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me."[24]
The common view of the age, that heretics like Servetus should be subject to punishment, was explained by Calvin as follows:

" Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory."


-Dave


(a-C responds)
:
Wow is that so off it is sad

When you have the time, this will be an incredible derivation from trusting in what is written in one source from another. Many good sources report the opposite and John’s own writings reveal the opposite.

John Calvin served this man day and night and was merely a witness called by the state….he was not the accuser, he was not the source of the condemnation, he was in fact a loving follower of Jesus Christ who availed his entire library and every resource he had to help Servetus to see the truth, he was overwhelmed with grief at his demise….

There are many villainizations in history. I have never read one quite more painted than this one.

Many professed evangelicals hate John Calvin and the doctrines of Grace…there could be many sources for this untruth, all are likely and valid, but like our Lord, we know his servants are not above his master, they will be persecuted (Rom 8). Simply stated, truth is truth, and every aspect of biblical truth is truth from the bible, not from men. Calvinism and the doctrines of grace are unmistakably in the bible, and men will go to any length to reject the things they hate.

I make it clear to my kids Encyclopedia’s are not truth, they are a version of the story. The only knowable truth is scripture, all is else is perspective that changes with the fashions.

-a-C


Fair assessment on both sides I think reveals some ecumenical possibilities. The conversation went on and degraded somewhat, so I will leave it here to return to sometime in effort to explore the possibility of common dialogue.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Catho - Linx

ILO my lack of production lately (secular paycheck black hole syndrome) I added some significant Audio Archives available on the internet (free) in my "Friends & Resources" list. Some are massive resources...like every "Journey Home" since 1998, is in that link on the list. So go get a few hundred CDR's, burn and fill your commute time with the Fullness!

I'll be back soon.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

Catholic Carnival #185

Is here, with a wide variety of great reading and resources of which I am proud to mingle.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Digital anti-Catholicism?

I searched for the "Lateran Church" (the Popes Cathedral) and this is what I get:

Digital a-C

Sunday, August 10, 2008

A Call to our Catholic Married Women...its Football Season

Where are your husbands on Sunday?

I am back from Mass today nearly outraged at yet again another Mass where the Married Women Parrishoners(assumed by my count as they were with children)outnumbered men by 5 to 1. As Winston Churchill once stated..."and that is something up with which we shall not put."

I have a distinct vantage point, as I am one of 5 standing (physically) Musicians for this weekly Mass and can count every head in the Church.

While I should be jaded and silent to it, due to the long standing statistic that only 15% (ish) of Married Parrish registered member Men attend weekly Mass, (a Holy Obligation nonetheless) but I am not callous to it. I cannot be. Its been epidemic level for too long.

And here comes Football season.

How many of you Catholic wives who live with a marginally or perfectly operating Male husband are letting him snow you into "its not my thing...that going to Mass stuff" ? I bet my cable subscription he doesnt make eye contact with you when he says that.

Enough Comedy.

I was one of those Men for a couple years. Until I was challenged for not leading my family by a (married male) friend of mine. No my wife never ran a guilt trip or even hinted at one, while she had every right to. (A master of self restraint that was) There is no reason, particularly if you have growing children, that Man cannot be at your side at Mass.

None.

I want you to make an effort to reach him. If he has a computer or better yet an ipod or mp3 listening device, have him listen to some Men who are leading their families, and more than that, with a little time spent in Catholic Media.

Brian Hathaway

Joe McClane

Patrick Madrid

And you dont have to say anything except "Check this out Honey".

There are a good amount of Catholic Men (not Priests) who have podcasts on itunes that can speak to your...ahem...husband, in a way he will hear it and not feel...ahem..."wifed"...about it, so to say. The Catholic Hack episode #63 speaks abit to this sad dilemna and Fr. Chavez has a take on the Ladies and their talent as well, that may be a tool in your belt for you to use.

Lastly, I read a fair amount of Catholic and non-C womens blogs and hopefully I have a few Women readers that know some that are in the position of which I speak.

I would love any comments on this, and be advised I have Tivo so I can prioritize my watch schedule and include my wife If she wants to see the Bucs pound the Patriots.

CJ Podcast # 002 is up

CJ Podcast 002

Basis of Belief, Proof and Faith Formation.