Eutychus please respond...

[ironmonk]

Eutychus,

You have answered one of my last questions by not answering.

Again, no scripture to back your stance? hmmm... was it wise to leave the Church (if you where ever Catholic) when you can't use Scripture against it?

I'm not about warm and fuzzy... simply about truth. I know some people here are shocked by that comment... to which is why I defer them to Furrow 965.

And I bid thee farewell with one last verse for you to meditate on...

[b]Acts 20:26 [/b]
[b]And so I solemnly declare to you this day that I am not responsible for the blood of [/b] any of [b]you[/b],
[b]27 [/b] [b]for I did not shrink from proclaiming to you the entire plan of God.[/b]
[b]28 [/b] Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers, 6 in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
[b]29 [/b] I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock.
[b]30 [/b] And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw the disciples away after them.



The dust is off my sandals. I won't be dialoging with you because you want a monologue.

God Bless & Pax Christi - Love in Christ & Mary,
ironmonk

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='977248' date='May 10 2006, 07:33 AM']
The reason for my hope?

I will let our brother Luke answer for me, as he wrote so long ago...
Rather clearcut if you ask me. I'm surprised that you needed me to explain that one to you. I guess when you have too much information, things can get quite confusing.

Once I saw a hypothetical question asked. "If you asked someone to put ALL the material that was required to become a Christian in the year 100, with full the theology in one room, then asked the modern Roman church to do the same, but in another room, what would the respective piles look like?"

It brought a smile to my face, as the miles of Vatican documents on shelves flashed before my eyes.

But thank you for asking, it is nice to see that you are concerned for my welfare. But I rather like the simplicity of the conversion story of the Phillipinian jailer for it's pure simplicity, speed, and directness.

"The author of confusion" is not my friend...
[/quote]


Well, prostestants have not been around as long as Catholics. Our system, which your system is based off of is more developed. I do not know a single demonination that follows what the original wings of the reformation stated (E.G. Lutherens follow Melacthon more then Luther, and some Calvinists do not hold all of TULIP any more). They are were also developed further and farther then most of the reformers has intended. And the reformered Protestants were self proclaimed blabber mouths (espcially Luther whom I got the term from).

I have a feeling that if you really look at who has a simpler system it will not be the 100,000 + or so different protestant systems. Yes the Faith is simple, but is also very deep.

As long as you stay protestant, I urge you to find a homily about John 6 that is not simply anti-Catholic.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Theoketos

[Eutychus]

[quote]Our system, which your system is based off of is more developed. I do not know a single demonination that follows what the original wings of the reformation stated (E.G. Lutherens follow Melacthon more then Luther, and some Calvinists do not hold all of TULIP any more). They are were also developed further and farther then most of the reformers has intended. And the reformered Protestants were self proclaimed blabber mouths (espcially Luther whom I got the term from). [/quote]

Well THAT was interesting. Was that a tour down Reformation Row?

First of all. My "flavor" isn't ANY of those daughter churches. But then, as a Catholic, the subtle nuance that one could be a mere Christian without that nametag matching the sign over the front door of a building escaped me too. So, in that respect, it is comforting to know that things haven't changed that much.

So, by my being an EX, I'm instantly going to be a defender of CATHOLIC PRIEST Luther, and CATHOLIC THEOLOGIAN Calvin, and CATHOLIC PRIEST Melanchethon and the other 1/2 way out and stop boys?

Why should that be, I wonder? Oh, forgot. If you ain't a Catholic, you simply MUST BE a Lutheran or a Baptist or a Calvinist, right?

Well, open your myopic eyes, and take a look around the world. What churches are exploding with growth remeniscent of the days immediately following Pentecost? I can confidently show you that the Calvinists { mostly Presbyterians now } are down 45% in the past decade, and the Lutherans? They are so close to extinction that you can almost count them on one hand, and shoot, the Lutherans in Europe are so confused they actually petitioned Rome to become papists again. I'll bet old Luther is spinning in his grave on that one.

No, I'm not a member of the daughter churches, nor would I want to be.

But, thanks for asking anyway. Let's see here. We have what is it up to now, 35,000 denominations on the Catholic rating scale? That only leaves MOST of them to wonder about. Hhehehehe.

I'll let you in on a little secret, MOST Christians can move around with other believers quite easily that denominational thing that defines some groups only serves to puff them up with some version of the OTC mentality.

But then again, some enjoy being filled with LEVEN, the puffing agent, don't they?

Best.

[Eutychus]

[quote] You have answered one of my last questions by not answering.

Again, no scripture to back your stance? hmmm... was it wise to leave the Church (if you where ever Catholic) when you can't use Scripture against it?[/quote]

Mr. Iron, or is that Mr. Monk, what is the name you like best?

I have an ENTIRE hard drive filled with every verse, answer, counter answer, to any and every possible verse tossing game, as I'm POSTITIVE so do you. It really is like a scripted automated chess game, you open, I have six possible moves, you have 11 countermoves, etc. We both know every verse, every argument, counter to the argument and counter counter to the countermoves.

Shoot, I can almost recite how each dances from memory now, Dave Armstrong, Scott Hahn, Mark Shea, Sungenis, Mario Dirksen { until he went totally off the reservation} and everyone's favorite blogger, little Amy's moves too. The only one that I haven't figured out is Carrie Tompko, but give me some time, and I will her too, eventually.

The boxstep is rather boring for most everyone once they graduate from dancing school.

But let me ask YOU a question, and I do believe it is the first I have actually asked of you.

What do you make of Rod's recent announcement that he was leaving the Catholic church. I had always considered Rod one of the BEST of the best still having and using a functioning brain. I was rather shocked to find out he too, is leaving the church.

[img]http://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/blogs/rdreher_blog.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/"]http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/[/url]

So, what do you think would make such a well versed, outspoken, erudite, thinking man make such a decision?

Best.

Edited May 10, 2006 by Eutychus

[Socrates]

Eutychus, you come to the Debate Table, yet refuse to debate.
Ironmonk has presented plentiful material and arguments in defense of the Church, none of which you have given a single meaningful answer to.

You have done nothing but make snide remarks and vague allegations, providing absolutely nothing to back them up.

If you have a single specific point to argue, argue it.
If you just want to troll, this is not the place for you.

[thessalonian]

Euchy,

I had never heard of Mr. Dreher before and that he was decieved like you is unfortunate. It's the article below that one in your link on contraception that interests me. It's Evangelicals coming to the opinion that the Popes have stuck to since Humanae Vitae that is the real story.

Shorto also quotes Pope Benedict XVI: "Contraception and abortion both have their roots in [a] depersonalized and utilitarian view of sexuality and procreation — which in turn is based on a truncated notion of man and his freedom."

Albert Mohler is even mentioned in this article as coming to these conclusions. Finally protestants are waking up! Don't mean to derail the thread but read the article folks.

Edited May 12, 2006 by thessalonian

[ironmonk]

Someone please let me know if he actually tries to dialog, I've got him on ignore. No since in reading his monologues if he is not going to address all the holes in the points he implies.

Speaks volumes for the Church being right. As St. Augustine said...

[quote]
City of God - Book 18
Chapter 51
[b]That the Catholic Faith may be confirmed even by the dissensions of the heretics.[/b]

But[b] the devil[/b], seeing the temples of the demons deserted, and the human race running to the name of the liberating Mediator, [b]has moved the heretics under the Christian name to resist the Christian doctrine, as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction[/b], just as the city of confusion indifferently held the philosophers who were of diverse and adverse opinions. Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, [u]contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and, going without, are to be reckoned as enemies who serve for her discipline[/u]. For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love Him. For all the enemies of the Church, whatever error blinds or malice depraves them, exercise her patience if they receive the power to afflict her corporally; and if they only oppose her by wicked thought, they exercise her wisdom: but at the same time, if these enemies are loved, they exercise her benevolence, or even her beneficence, whether she deals with them by persuasive doctrine or by terrible discipline. And thus the devil, the prince of the impious city, when he stirs up his own vessels against the city of God that sojourns in this world, is permitted to do her no harm. For without doubt the divine providence procures for her both consolation through prosperity, that she may not be broken by adversity, and trial through adversity, that she may not be corrupted by prosperity; and thus each is tempered by the other, as we recognize in the Psalms that voice which arises from no other cause, "According to the multitude of my griefs in my heart, Thy consolations have delighted my soul." Hence also is that saying of the apostle, "Rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation."

For it is not to be thought that what the same teacher says can at any time fail, "Whoever will live piously in Christ shall suffer persecution." Because even when those who are without do not rage, and thus there seems to be, and really is, tranquillity, which brings very much consolation, especially to the weak, yet there are not wanting, yea, there are many within who by their abandoned manners torment the hearts of those who live piously, since by them the Christian and catholic name is blasphemed; and the dearer that name is to those who will live piously in Christ, the more do they grieve that through the wicked, who have a place within, it comes to be less loved than pious minds desire. The h[u]eretics themselves also, since they are thought to have the Christian name and sacraments, Scriptures, and profession, cause great grief in the hearts of the pious, both because many who wish to be Christians are compelled by their dissensions to hesitate, and many evil-speakers also find in them matter for blaspheming the Christian name, because they too are at any rate called Christians. By these and similar depraved manners and errors of men, those who will live piously in Christ suffer persecution, even when no one molests or vexes their body; for they suffer this persecution, not in their bodies, but in their hearts.[/u] Whence is that word, "According to the multitude of my griefs in my heart;" for he does not say, in my body. Yet, on the other hand, none of them can perish, because the immutable divine promises are thought of. And because the apostle says, "The Lord knoweth them that are His; for whom He did foreknow, He also predestinated [to be] conformed to the image of His Son," none of them can perish; therefore it follows in that psalm, "Thy consolations have delighted my soul." But that grief which arises in the hearts of the pious, who are persecuted by the manners of bad or false Christians, is profitable to the sufferers, because it proceeds from the charity in which they do not wish them either to perish or to hinder the salvation of others. Finally, great consolations grow out of their chastisement, which imbue the souls of the pious with a fecundity as great as the pains with which they were troubled concerning their own perdition. Thus in this world, in these evil days, not only from the time of the bodily presence of Christ and His apostles, but even from that of Abel, whom first his wicked brother slew because he was righteous, and thenceforth even to the end of this world, the Church has gone forward on pilgrimage amid the persecutions of the world and the consolations of God. [/quote]



God Bless,
ironmonk

[thessalonian]

The stars of the night are not seen without the darkness. All to the greater glory of God! I love that part of city of God. hammer meet head of nail. . I should also mention that eventually the darkness in which only the stars show the glory of God eventually gives way to the day in which hte total light of his glor is revealed.

Edited May 12, 2006 by thessalonian

[Eutychus]

You know, Monkman seems to have some sort of chip on his shoulder, like he has something to prove.

To date, I really haven't done anything BUT wonder where he is coming from. First, he challenges me to prove that the Catholic Church is not the OTC of all times. Now we ask the simple question, WHY? Did I say anything that would prompt MONK to erect a STRAWMAN, then proceed to challenge ME to knock HIS self erected EDIFACE down?

Nope.

When I declined to play his silly little game of cut and past prepackaged apologetics sparring, he gets all huffy, declares himself the "winner' puts me on ignore and settles back in all self satisfied that he actually "won" something.

The hubris is something that I have seen all too often, that smug satisfaction of the ideologue.

Frankly, after doing this for some time, I expected nothing less.

Monitoring this site for the past week, I find what is NOT here, just as amazing as what IS here.

For example, over in Toledo, a priest was just convicted of ritualistically killing a nun in a chapel, with satanic precision and ritual. Now to me, that is a pretty big story. Was it even mentioned here on this site? Not that I have seen. In LA a few days ago, another priest was convicted, he had been accused of molesting 32 seperate boys, with over 600 other pending cases, THAT is a huge story, was that even mentioned here,? Again, not that I have seen.

Now if Monk wants to actually dialogue, instead of just offering me his Catholic Answers cribsheet in a regurgitate mode, I might actually find it worthwhile. But frankly, going round and round on the same old, same old, isn't all that exciting to me.

But then, I rarely if ever see the hard core Catholic dealing with the realities of the church, much preferring to delve in the real of the abstract, the paperwork, and glossing over the history, and the times that we live in. I guess that is all around safer for some.

Best.

[cmotherofpirl]

You can start a thread on any topic you want, you don't have to stick to one thread.

I believe the topic of the priest convicted of murder is in open mic. I haven't see the other one mentioned. Neither will be posted on this board which is geared toward debate, not news.

[thessalonian]

Issues such as this haven't been discussed on this board? Surely you jest. But what does it all prove. I suppose if you want to believe that Judaism was false because hophni and phineas were having sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting and david had his friend killed for his wife and the Jewish Elders sacrificed children on mountaintops to false God's then you might think that going in the mud with Catholics is proving something as well. You might want to rip out Pauls books from your Bible however, because he said "the good that I would do I do not, while the EVIL that I would not do I do". While such discussions seem to feed Protestant hunger for gossip and inuendo, they do little to resolve the issues that are between us.

Further, if you want to talk about heads being in the sand then perhaps on protestant message boards you should be posting something that goads them in to talking about the vast number of scandals within their churches. I.e. studies show that 13% of baptist pastors have had sex with someone other than their wives and 33% admit inappropriate dealings with people of the opposite sex. Coverup? 70% of pastors know someone who has done these things. And perhaps a good discussion of www.reformation.com is in order. Check it out. Once again however this does not prove anything about truth. Men are sinners. So what's new.

God bless

[Eutychus]

[quote] ssues such as this haven't been discussed on this board? Surely you jest. But what does it all prove. I suppose if you want to believe that Judaism was false because hophni and phineas were having sex in the doorway of the tent of the meeting and david had his friend killed for his wife and the Jewish Elders sacrificed children on mountaintops to false God's then you might think that going in the mud with Catholics is proving something as well.[/quote]

Of courst the OBJECT lesson for our times, what that because Eli was such a poor GUARDIAN of the Aaronic priesthood, and his sons were so badly supervised, that God PERMANENTLY removed the line from the future promise, and cut them off, finding another family to carry on that priesthood. So, using YOUR example here, which of course, you will not like, the so called "apostolic succession" has been broken because of crimes at the very highest levels of the "priesthood" which, by the way, history certainly proves to be true. So, USING your example, why is your leadership VALID and LICIT when they are guilt of far worse than Eli's sons ever dreamed of doing.

Please explain to me, WHY you chose that example, and WHY since you chose it, we should NOT ACTUALLY examine it, tear it apart, seek the lesson contained within, and apply it?

Ball is in your court now.

[Sojourner]

God didn't take the priesthood away from the entire tribe of Levi ... he only cut off Eli's family -- "his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them."

Despite the sin of Eli and his sons, the priesthood remained intact for centuries. The branches were pruned, but the tree remained firmly rooted.

So we address the sin in our leadership, and cut it out if such action is warranted. The branches are pruned, but the tree remains firmly rooted.

[thessalonian]

Thx SJ. Considering the scribes and the pharisees sat on Moses seat, even though Jesus was HIGHLY critical of their behavior proves the fallacy of your arguement. Also I would present the example of Caiphas as well, who spoke with the authority of God in John 8 and 11 concerning the prudence of sending Jesus to his death. The scriptures say he did not speak these things on his own but due to his prophetic office. There was a transition of power eventually, as prophesied in Is 22 which Jesus clearly drew from in Matt 15-19 when he showed who the authority would transition to. Since you know all the carbon copy arguements I am sure I don't have to expound on that one. Do let me know if I am going to fast for you and you can't get your 6 arguements go counter my 11. .

[jasJis]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='977673' date='May 10 2006, 01:45 PM']
But let me ask YOU a question, and I do believe it is the first I have actually asked of you.

What do you make of Rod's recent announcement that he was leaving the Catholic church. I had always considered Rod one of the BEST of the best still having and using a functioning brain. I was rather shocked to find out he too, is leaving the church.

[img]http://images.beliefnet.com/imgs/blogs/rdreher_blog.jpg[/img]

[url="http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/"]http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/crunchycon/[/url]

So, what do you think would make such a well versed, outspoken, erudite, thinking man make such a decision?

Best.[/quote]Euch, Dancing skills are pointless if you don't listen to the music.

Rod's leaving the Church is not for Theological reasons. Since you admit he has a functioning brain, which theological issues do you disagree with. Rod isn't leaving to become Baptist or non-denominational, he feels he staying with the same theology, but practiced differently within the organization of the temporal Church.

Don't show off your Tango steps when they're playing the Polka and claim other's don't dance as well as you.