Blogcast #2 - #3

I'll be going away from this blogoshpere on vacation for about 10 days. I plan to (other than spend valued time with the CJ family) put Podcast #2 and #3 in the recorder during the next week or so.

#2 outline:
The real discernment of my personal belief ability. How I was able to get beyond personal conceptual obstacles like my own motive for Belief, cause and effect in my own life history, conscious effort to get outside of my self-imposed mental limits of spiritual comprehension.

#3 will focus on some sacremental research I was pulled into and why, a path to understanding the mechanics of the Mass and some epiphany moments with other Christians who illuminated aspects of tangible Christian personal experience.

I do have a line of a-C post drafts in the works of current conversations, so much so I am getting a bit out of sequence with his database, but will catch up.

So I'll be back in early August.

-Peace

"Roman Catholic Bafoonary"

I am evidently damned to hell for practicing Catholicism, and so is my family I am responsible for, according to the a-C. I ask YOU, my readers, to absorb the content of the following conversation and comment accordingly....I turn this one over to you and Christ for response...until I am lead otherwise:

(a-C writes):
Was reading 1 peter this morning and was overwhelmed at the love he had for the once for all, one time act of redemption that was accomplished in Christ Jesus my Lord

1 Peter 1:18 knowing that you were not redeemed with corruptible things, [like] silver or gold, from your aimless conduct [received] by tradition from your fathers, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. 20 He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you

To think that Popery could esteem him to be the establisher of traditions is contrary to the 2 books of Scripture that he wrote…..aimless conduct received by tradition from your fathers….he called such tradition, AIMLESS CONDUCT and pointed the reader and us to the blood of Christ alone….The Roman Catholic Mass is aimless conduct in every sense of the word…it does not accomplish anything and Peter would reject this hypocrisy BOLDLY….for the love of the precious blood of Christ

(CJ responds):
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). "

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thess. 2:15)"

"There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures" (2 Pet. 3:16). (Peter referring to Pauls Letters)

Sacred Scripture does not contradict itself. Your personal, out of context, judgemental interpretation of 1P1:18 has lead you astray again.

(a-C responds):
Scripture does not commend the worthless practices of lighting candles and praying to dead saints, being sprinkled with smoke, having a cross with ashes rubbed on your head, doing a criss cross with your hands, praying a rosary, praying to departed saints, making staues of dead saints, sprinkling water on infants heads, Paul nor peter handed these traditions to the church, the letter of 1 corinthians explained the construct of what he was emphasizing to maintain…he is not referring to traditions not mentioned, he goes on in 11 and edifies the traditions he is enumerating…head coverings, woman not shaving their head,

You can not show me one refernce to praying a rosary for the atonement of sins, yet this is a supposed practice handed down…I can show you 100’s of scriptures which would cause a bible reading person to discern such a practice not only worthless, rather an abomination

I must do acts of penance for the forgiveness of sins

There is a treasury of merit

Dave I know a lot of tradtions that are outright damning, and you and your family by practicing them are trusting in them…or as Romans 1:32, not doing them, but approving of those who do them, you are deserving of death….so affiliation with the practices affirms you in affirming others

Salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone…you do not cooperate with traditions and your prescriptive works by a priest, you come to Christ and trust him alone

Join the true believers who worship Christ in spirit and truth, not in traditions and sacraments and all the idolatry, spirit is the indwelling of the holy spirit, and truth Jesus said clearly in John 17, I do not pray for those in the world, but for those you have given me, he prayed that they would be sanctified by truth, your word is truth

Jesus made it clear…you must be born again – does your wife know what that means

It is the only YOU MUST that Jesus conveyed in all of scripture

Can you teach your children the truth of what this means or are they confident that all this popery is what they are trusting in

Unless a man be born again, he can not enter the Kingdom of God

Nicodemus was as close to the Pope as they come and he was astounded…by God’s grace he came to saving faith

You are responsible for your family and your abominations will be to the third and fourth generations….you are a reproach to the name of Christ to defend this bafoonary

I am here to explain scripture not refute your cults holdings. You need truth, not Catholicism for dummies to explain their holdings, you need to read scripture for yourself and let scripture interpret scripture. My one email alone on saints should have caused tremendous concerns…over a 100 passages that totally refute the notion that a saint is a departed person who was recognized for their life….and we pray to them….

To think that this text somehow supports all this popery is ridiculous…read the chapter, he tells you what tradition he is addressing and reinforcing

We Interupt this BlogCast #1

To say Watch this:

Accountability

Years ago I attended a Christian Mens Evangelical Event with a Methodist friend of mine, where volumes of information was revealed about the modern Christian Mens Ministry movement in this Country. One of the primary tools this particular outfit professed as essential for Christian Men in our culture is the Accountability Group. The pretense is based on (specifically) adult Christian Men establishing close, vulnerable and routine relationships with each other, where they meet routinely to expose their emotional wounds, relate their internal struggles and keep tabs on each other from a goal oriented spiritual foundation, with other like minded-value driven Christian Men. For instance, like minded Christian Married Men in a locality or specific Church meet weekly to have the support of their spiritual peers on the male baggage (Lust, greed, pride, etc.) created by this Culture that we battle daily. Its a good concept...I even tried to get an accountability group started in my area (multi - Denom) but got no response.

The Calvary Chapel denomination has a similar arrangement called "Life Groups". They are a growing denom in my area. These groups often employ some outside ministry efforts on their own but primarily meet in homes and over time establish close enough ties to have a nominally positive effect on their personal lives, generally, in my opinion.

What success these relationships have are based on accountability for your actions (sins) and attempting to the best of their abilities, to employ peer based measure of support and some level of confidentiality. Sound familiar? Its a lay Christian Psychiatry/Psychology practice. Unload your troubles, get related to, get relief and support, rinse and repeat.

While I see the benefit myself, the one thing that is missing from these efforts is the 90% that makes it meaningful spiritually.

Reconciliation. Absolution. Forgiveness.

Catholics have the whole thing covered. Confession (in confidentiality) with one of authority (makes for the accountability) true repentance, penance and the absolute assurance, biblically, that this man walks out of that session able to start anew.

Cant do all that with pal Roger in a coffee shop.

-Peace

Mary as Co-redemptrix

The a-C brought the "co-redeemer" question into play today, stating that JP II wrote official Church Doctrine stating such....which is not the case.

The concept "Co-redemptrix" has not been formally defined as a Marian dogma, although petitions for declaring it (along with Mediatrix) a dogma have been submitted to the pope by various Cardinals and bishops. It would become a fifth Marian dogma if approved by the Vatican.

The concept of Co-redemptrix refers to an indirect or unequal but important participation by the Blessed Virgin Mary in redemption. She gave free consent to give life to the redeemer, to share his life, to suffer with him under the cross and to sacrifice him for the sake of the redemption of humankind.

The Roman Catholic view of Co-redemptrix does not imply that Mary participates as equal part in the redemption of the human race, since Christ is the only redeemer . Mary herself needed redemption and was redeemed by Jesus Christ her son. Being redeemed by Christ, implies that she cannot be his equal part in the redemption process(1).

We (me included) have to be careful to fully research claims coming from incomplete definitions and outside of doctrine writings. I, in my limited comprehension dont have a problem seeing this as compatible with Sacred Scripture, as long as the terms indirect and unequal are stated clearly.

(1) See Wikipedia-"Co-redemptrix"

Catholics "made up" the Rapture

So heres how it happened...ahem...according to a Protestant, who engaged said CJ in a non Religious forum, here on the old InterWebNet:

Mr. Protestant said:
"I dont want to step on any toes, but were you guys aware that the whole Rapture /Tribulation thing was made up by the Catholic church to counteract Martin Luthers movement, and the belief that was becaoming predominant among Protestants that the Pope was the Anti-Christ? I have all the historical evidence and the names of the two authors if anyone is interested."

To which I replied:
"Oy, .....yeah I'm interested....John Nelson Darby invented the "Rapture" (dispensationalism) in 1830-31 after he left the Angelican Priesthood. No previous Christian, neither Catholic nor Protestant, had ever proposed or taught such an thing. It is not the same as the Tribulation based in 1 Thes. Ch 4-5 and Revelation sources."

MP Response:
"OK, Im not sure this is the place for it, and maybe we're opening a can of worms here-but here goes..........The foundation of the rapture theory was laid over 400 years ago upon the specific orders of the Catholic Church. Every Christian needs to understand how this fabrication of error was designed to neutralize the great Protestant Reformation. If the facts of history were known by Protestants today who defend with such great emotion the rapture theory and the futurist antichrist doctrine, they would be horrified. Luther and his fellow reformers boldly identified the pope as the "man of sin," and labeled the Catholic Church as the antichrist of prophecy. In response to those charges, the hierarchy assigned two Jesuit priests to develop counter- interpretations which would turn the onus away from the Catholic Church. In spite of the fact that the two men founded opposing schools of interpretation, their theories have survived to form the basis of most modern Protestant theology today. Not only did they effectively blunt Luther's assessment of the papacy as the antichrist, but they cleverly divided and diluted the "protest" of all the churches which grew out of the Reformation movement. Modern religious observers were astounded in January, 1984, when men like Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell meekly accepted and defended the establishment of United States political ties with the Vatican. Why could those famous Protestant spokesmen see no danger in being allied with the Church of Rome? Because they are deceived, along with millions of others, by the Catholic-contrived theories of those two priests which have almost eclipsed the historic, biblical position of the Reformers. If the spiritual descendants of Luther and Wesley now had the same doctrine which they taught, not a single Lutheran or Methodist would favor any kind of alliance with the papacy today. Now let's take a look at these two Spanish priests who flooded the sixteenth century with their counter-Reformation propaganda.Alcazar of Seville applied all the beast prophecies to Antiochus Epiphanes, who lived long before the popes began to rule in Rome. His system of interpretation came to be known as the Preterist School of prophecy.On the other hand, Jesuit Francisco Rivera invented a system known as the Futurist School of interpretation. He taught that the antichrist was to be some future superman who would appear near the end of time and continue in power for three and a half years. It is his clever, unscriptural theory which has been resurrected by modern evangelical Protestant Christians. And today millions of Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, etc., hold this anti-Protestant concoction of the Jesuits as some kind of infallible doctrine. Yet, those same denominations claim to be faithful supporters of Protestant theology. Luther and other stalwart protestors against Catholic errors would be astounded if they were suddenly resurrected to hear what is being taught in the name of Protestantism. In the early 1800s the futurist view of Jesuit Ribera passed through certain refinements and additions, including the seven-year tribulation and the snatching away of the saints. For the first time, it was espoused by Protestant teachers who were seeking ways of reconciliation with Rome. Through the influence and writings of John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth Brethren Church in England, the new doctrine spread to the United States. During the middle and latter nineteenth century, it received its biggest boost from Cyrus Scofield, who incorporated it into the notes of his Scofield Reference Bible published in 1909."

After gaining my composure, I did a good bit of digging, confirming and happened upon the following info and responded:

"Mr. Protestant, here's where your post was copied from, word for word basically.
http://apologetics.scriptmania.com/3400.htm

...which in my view is a highly political attack on Catholics today and in the past. Too bad you didnt post Catherine Andrew's appropriate response as a balance, as the site and your quote is a Catholic Apologetic site resource. I stand by the fact I stated above and Catherine Andrews response in the link. Specifically "The Catholic faith has had a line of her own would-be prophets speaking about the Last Days......The fact that certain Protestant groups borrowed from Catholic eschatology does not constitute a conspiracy on her part." Whats really more important than engaging you, Mr. Protestant, in a "chicken or egg" contest about a warmongers motives in 175 A.D. (Antiochus Epiphanes), is that Catholics today, with any reasonable knowledge of that faiths origins and practices, bear more fruit with Protestants in finding common ground and biblical basis of debate. Catholics did not make up the Rapture theory. "

(End of said lively debate.)

Notice the distinct attack language by MP in his first statement, baiting anyone to challenge him "if anyone is interested". Without regard to the narration that follows (which is opinion and not historically supported), this is a perfect example of intentional ignorance. MP read something emotionally charged against Catholicism, valid or not, and not only chose to repeat it as truth, but published it with a request for engagement!

This is the danger of a Protestant attack, and why I have a specific post category for it. We, as Catholics must research all angles before any assertion, so as not to fall into the same intellectual laziness trap. As well....we have an obligation to our Church to defend it. A non-response is validation, in the perception of the writer. This is actually the essence and primary purpose of this website.

Now, did I win him over to my point here...I couldnt tell. My motive is not to spew "Down
Goes Frasier!" at conclusion. Maybe calling out the partial source of errant info by Mr. Protestant played to the Catholic credibility...I hope so. Maybe the no fluff answer and a call for finding fruit bearing common ground will prevail. Its all I can do to leave it there for someone, just one maybe, to see a misinformed conclusion get a valid, factual response, and remain approachable.

I want to believe thats what He wants me to want, so I do.

R. C. Sproul has it wrong.

I just spent a few hours with a recording of him...again.

I had been given a cd of Dr. Sprouls speech to the Shepards Conference a few years ago. I had listened through the entire hour once back then, and he addressed the Catholic practice of indulgences and the Lateran Church Relics in an outright attack on RCC Doctrine and Trents councils published practice for receiving indulgences. 3 years ago...not having researched Trents documentation at all, he had a convincing argument against the RCC's practice. He quoted several Trent documents directly with what sounded like accuracy, and certainly, most undeniably, Dr. Sprouls talent and articulation of public speaking added to a high level of perceived credibility to his Lutheran points of attack.

So this week I loaded that speech into itunes, and sat down with some resources on Trent from the Vatican. It didnt take long to uncover why Dr. Sproul turned down a direct debate offer from Robert Sungenis. which is summarized by Mr. Sungenis as follows:

"Upon receiving the letter, Sproul had his secretary call me. She said he was simply too busy to engage in a formal debate, citing his many activities: books, radio, tapes, and so on. I asked her to tell Sproul that if he is going to travel the country accusing Catholics of heresy, he should stop hiding behind his schedule and engage with some respectable opponents who can answer his claims. After all, I said, 1 Peter 3:15 commands us to "give an answer of the hope that is in you to everyone that asks."

Not receiving a return call, I wrote Sproul another letter asking him to reconsider. I also asked that if he maintained his option not to debate, to let us know in writing rather than have his secretary call us. That he did. (See sidebar.)

In reading the letter I was immediately struck by the two-sided answer he gave. First, he attributed his incapacity to debate to the board of Ligonier Ministries, which apparently does not let him out but twice a year. I'm sure, however, that if Sproul really wanted to debate us he could. The second answer probably gives the real reason for his reluctance. He says that the "speaking committee doesn't see the value of my being involved in a debate on sola fide, and I am in agreement with the committee's decision." Here is a man who has spent virtually half his life attacking the Catholic view of justification and now has the audacity to say he doesn't see any "value" in being involved in such a debate."

Sprouls well delivered verbal painting that we can buy indulgences for days off in purgatory were actually dealt with by Trent directly, and are shown to be false.

I think its time someone take him on. I plan to do a podcast on this specific attack by Dr. Sproul, then hopefully some unsuspecting victim will catch our truth before falling for his false conclusion and incomplete research.

You cannot be Serious....

I really should'nt have to excercise this much self restraint.

The a-C just got off the phone with me, after a lengthy diatribe by him stating that the Crusades/Inquisition murder of Heretics era of Catholicism is active in the minds most Anti-Catholic Protestants. (Um...tell something new please)

Essentially, I was pointing out to him that calling himself an "Anathema" (see previous post)was misinformed of current doctrine. Here is his answer to that:

"So were they (Rome) wrong with the tradition then? It really wasn’t meant to be a tradition? Do we issue an apology to all that were murdered or was that correct for the time and now we now longer do that…so God intended this truth for a brief period of time…I know you see the problem you face here…there is no way around it, the answer is no, you can’t redefine it the word…you are merely muddying the discussion to evade the need to realize that there is nothing that Rome can do with the papal decrees here popery issued in the 1400’s, are you saying they were wrong and now you are correcting? You answer is insufficient…your example is grossly minimizing the significance of this decree (anathema for faith alone, anathema if you don’t hold that the priestly order is only capable of discerning scripture, anathema for many things), these decrees resulted in condemnation both physically and pronounced spiritually….do you have formal issuances from popery that addresses this, NO, they unlike the mormans have never written anything to correct the issuances because they were inerrant in their giving…. You can’t answer no…. don’t they can’t answer this question, and I trust they can’t dupe you into thinking a logical answer is warranted…Rome is not the church and the traditions they prescribe are lies as this one scenario clearly renders…."

The a-C, while I find this attack language offensive, (note: well trained restraint required to absorb Content and not Tone) has a point worthy of addressing. While gathering my answer, I cited a portion of Mr. Akin's article on this subject, thus:

"8. The Church cannot retract its anathemas. Anti-Catholics love to repeat this falsehood for rhetorical flourish. But again, it isn’t true. The Church is free to abolish any penalty of ecclesiastical law it wants to, and it did abolish this one."

I see the a-C's point of linking an Anathema definition to the "victims" of the Crusades is that he would suffer far more greatly if today was...say the year 1067, and he denounced Catholicism. Valid point. So lets address the statement:

"Do we issue an apology to all that were murdered or was that correct for the time and now we now longer do that?...do you have formal issuances from popery that addresses this, NO,.... "

Pope John Paul II did in fact make as formal an apology and penance act as one could today....to obtain forgiveness for the acts of long ago deceased Catholic "Instigators". This CNN article of the 2000 JP II apology takes a mid-line view.

So, the answer is yes, "we" did apologize for all that...although I'm still not sure Catholics had anything to apologize for. I have read purportions by Catholic Apologists that state Calvin executed Servetus, which in plain fact is also not true, factually. So when this kind of debate spurs, coloring Catholics with the brush of murderous motive against Protestantkind, and its left to non-biblical, fallible history books to get right, I cant get conviction from those sources on fault. Fair is fair.

CJ Podcast #001 is up

CJ Podcast 001

The beginning of a Christian discovery.

Catholic Carnival #177

I am honored to mingle with the best Bloggers now....click this post title to see!
-Peace