To Budge - Interfaith Dialogue And Ecumenism

[Mitchell_b55]

In discussing interfaith dialogue we must also discuss ecumenism.

[b]A major misunderstanding occurs in regard to ecumenism. [/b]

Ecumenism is the promotion of unity or cooperation between distinct religious groups or denominations of the Christian religion. It has the goal of reconciling all who profess Christian faith into a single, visible organization through union with the Roman Catholic Church. This union cannot occur through compromise, thus it is a tedious process that requires dialogue between the Christian denominations and the Church, therefore removing any misunderstanding on both sides in regard to doctrine, history and practice. The discussion of doctrine is integral so that both sides understand common misconceptions, e.g. the argument of grace, faith and works is commonly an argument of semantics and nothing more.

The Second Vatican Council endeavored, as its designer, Pope John XXIII, stated, to seek rekindling within the Church itself, which would serve, for those separated from the See of Rome, as a ‘gentle invitation to seek and find that unity for which Jesus Christ prayed so ardently to his heavenly Father.’

The Council opened up an era of earnest endeavor to explain to others the Church's teaching and to understand their position against the Church, so that misconceptions could be corrected in regard to this position.

[b]Budge quoted:[/b]
[quote]Dialogue is a conversation among persons or groups who differ on a subject, the primary purpose of which is for each party to learn from the other.[/quote]

However your comparison to the Catholic mentality is a fallacy, you are assuming that by learning and understanding their position, we are indeed learning a necessary fundamental of religion, which we lack. “Learn from the other,’ infers that we lack something, which we do not. Interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths, does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another. This is improbable, because of obvious contradictions in doctrine and deity. It is, however, necessary, simply to promote better relations. It promotes toleration, mutual respect [in a secular sense] and cooperation, whether among Christian denominations, or between Christianity and other faiths.

[b]Budge quoted:[/b]
[quote]’Age of Dialogue,’ wherein humans are increasingly learning to dialogue with those who are religiously/ideologically, and therefore, culturally, different from them. In order to do so successfully, they are beginning first to listen to ‘the other’ in order to learn from them, and then respond.[/quote]

Again “listening’ and “learning’ about mutual misconceptions will lead us all to a more fruitful existence, and the salvation of souls. We must know what they believe, and they must know what we believe so that we can bring them to the truth. Those that argue over semantics [The study of meaning] are foolish and ignorant. Therefore we must understand what the other means, and go from there. At the end of this article I have quoted a page from my website on Semantics.

This is necessary in a world where the slightest offense could cause the death of thousands of innocent people. We are to show charity and evangelize without impertinent statements, which cause friction-causing insults. No one, Budge appreciates your method of evangelizing. It is crude, vulgar and will turn most people away from faith, because of the attitude. This is necessary to preserve the peace; this is the goal of the Pope Benedict XVI and his dialogue. Someone, I believe Akalyte, recently quoted: ‘Where division and wrath dwell, God does not’ Benedict actually has not relented, his apology was an apology that his quote caused offense, not that it was untrue. He did not apologize further at the meeting with Muslims Representatives at his Summer Residence. Budge, you said ‘It shows me who Rome is really aligned with.’ This is an immature statement that assumes that because the Pope is speaking with Muslims that he agrees with Muslims; such a fallacy is almost funny. Norseman, made a very good observation you would learn from, ‘You can treat people humanely without agreeing with their incorrect beliefs. Evangelizing is not just yelling random bible verses at people passing by on the street. Sometimes it involves getting to know people first.’

I will ask you an honest question, which any honest man [or woman] would answer: Do you truly think a Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Agnostic, Theosophist, Buddhist, Taoist, or any other religious personality gives a beaver dam what the Bible says? I can say from experience that I was converted from agnosticism, by honest introspection and act of reason, which then allowed me to accept the infallible Church and its Scriptures. Your method is destroying Christian faith, by making us look like ignorant superstitious bible-thumpers who have isolated our faith from human reason. Perhaps you think this is blasphemous to say, but the truth is the truth. Have you read the Pope's Regensburg Lecture? If not read it. I am going to quote a friend of mine who is a Baptist, they wrote this introduction for my website's page on the existence of God:

[quote]Reason is a beautiful thing that has existed since before Creation. As we read in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ λογος, Logos, the Greek word for “word’ and “reason,’ is that from which the word “logic’ is derived. Man, being made in the very image of the Almighty Creator, was given reason, that which was present during the creation of the world [Proverbs 8:22-31]. …[/quote]

[b]Budge you have shown us you can read a New Age Document, therefore you can read a Church Document:[/b]

[quote]Every renewal of the Church is essentially grounded in an increase of fidelity to her own calling. Undoubtedly this is the basis of the movement toward unity ... There can be no ecumenism worthy of the name without a change of heart. For it is from renewal of the inner life of our minds, from self-denial and an unstinted love that desires of unity take their rise and develop in a mature way. We should therefore pray to the Holy Spirit for the grace to be genuinely self-denying, humble, gentle in the service of others, and to have an attitude of brotherly generosity towards them. ... The words of St. John hold good about sins against unity: ‘If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us’. So we humbly beg pardon of God and of our separated brethren, just as we forgive them that trespass against us. [UR 6-7][/quote]

[quote]The burden of long-standing misgivings inherited from the past, and of mutual misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse. Consequently, the commitment to ecumenism must be based upon the conversion of hearts and upon prayer, which will also lead to the necessary purification of past memories. With the grace of the Holy Spirit, the Lord's disciples, inspired by love, by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. [UUS 2][/quote]

[quote]In ecumenical dialogue, Catholic theologians standing fast by the teaching of the Church and investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the fundamental Christian faith. Thus the way will be opened by which through fraternal rivalry all will be stirred to a deeper understanding and a clearer presentation of the unfathomable riches of Christ [UR 11] [/quote]

[quote]The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth. In the Body of Christ, ‘the way, and the truth, and the life’ [Jn 14:6], who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth?...Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it. [UUS 18-19][/quote]

[b]Furthermore:[/b]

[quote]When the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that unity which Christ bestowed on His Church from the beginning. We believe that this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose, and we hope that it will continue to increase until the end of time. [UR 4][/quote]

The Texts used are the Unitatis Redintegratio [UR], of 21 November 1964, and Pope John Paul II's encyclical, Ut Unum Sin [UUS] of 25 May 1995.

[b]Also, a couple of other comments: [/b]

[quote]Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. [Deu 12:30][/quote]

[b]Key words:[/b] “following them,’ “enquire not after their gods,’ “How did these nations serve their gods?’

In this it is not an enquiry, driven by curiosity, but a mutual dialogue that will lead us to better understand “mutual misunderstandings and prejudices.’ We are not interested in how other religions serve their Gods, but instead interested in how we can bring them to the faith through dialogue. We do not follow them.

Budge, “Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse.’

[b]Budge mentioned:[/b] “What happened to talk? preach? witness?’

First of all, dialogue is talking. A dialogue is a conversation between two or more persons.

As for the term preach, you are posting on “Preaching Holy Apostolic Truth’
To “witness’ Christ is something we don’t have to talk about, we just do it. By our actions and our lifestyle, therefore we do it everyday, if we are good Catholics. You also may here Catholics use the term “being apostolic’ this is more common and is just what it infers “preaching the Word as the apostles preached it.’

[b]Akalyte said:[/b]

[quote]I don’t believe in interfaith dialogue, I believe other religion have some truth but not enough to save them. The Catholic Faith is the only way to heaven; Christ is the Way the Truth and the life. I'd rather not flirt with the outsiders. No one can condemn me for believing this way either. Christ said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you. No life means death. The outsiders have no life if they don’t have the Eucharist.[/quote]

My response is, “Christ is the Way the Truth and the life.’ Therefore a fraction of truth that exists outside of the Church is still truth. “I'd rather not flirt with the outsiders.’ Perhaps, but we are asked to spread our faith, and by finding the truth in their religion we can build off of that truth and come to a conversion to the Faith. I have done it numerous times, i.e. using a person’s religion, and the small amount of truth it possesses as a foundation for their conversion. “No one can condemn me for believing this way either.’ No, I suppose we cannot, however you must find another way to be gentle, charitable and apostolic at the same time. “Christ said unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no life in you.’ The Eucharist is essential, however we must bring them back from the dead, through baptism and communion with the body of Christ, and therefore we must convince them outside of the realm of life, using the fraction of truth that they have meagerly grasped onto outside of it.

[i]Christ is Truth,
Christ is Life,
Therefore Truth is Life.[/i]

Budge, I want a straight-forward, charitable, kind and honest response. I am, frankly, exhausted from this arguing in a way condemned by the Bible, over “words.’

On my website, which I have been busy with [someday I will release it for your viewing, Phatmassers] many articles, in my introductory disclaimer.

[b]All that follows is from that disclaimer:[/b]

[b]SEMANTICS[/b]

Semantics is the study of meaning. In apologetics language is important, we almost have to be rhetoricians so that the arguments mean, in an obvious way, exactly what we intend it to mean. Saint Paul tells Timothy: ‘Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers’ [2 Timothy 2:14] In this area I will not budge. I will not argue over the meaning of a word, when it has more than one meaning, and in the argument the word is used in one specific way. If the person retorts that I am using it incorrectly I will clarify myself once, and that will be the end of it. Further argument could very well be sinful.

[b]A couple of examples that I feel are important:[/b]

Recently a friend of mine, a ‘non-denominational Christian,’ tells me that the Pope [Papa - Father] using the title Pontifex Maximus is blasphemous, because Pontiff [English] means to create a bridge or path across, thus indicating that Pope feels he is a mediator between man and God. The argument against this opinion is not within the scope of this disclaimer, but to make this assumption is to ignore the nature of language. The word Pontiff could mean: [1] a member of the Pontifical College, which was presided over by a chief priest. Ancient Roman Religion [2] any high or chief priest, or [3] Ecclesiastical. [I] a bishop, or [II] the Roman Catholic pope, the Bishop of Rome. The original meaning of the word is of no consequence, since this meaning has no bearing upon the use of the word in relation to the Bishop of Rome. Similarly on the same topic, the Pope has a number of official titles: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, and Servant of the Servants of God. Some of these have temporal implications, but a number of words have interesting connotations. Does the Pope's title, Primate of Italy make him a mammal of the order Primates, which includes the anthropoids and prosimians, characterized by refined development of the hands and feet, a shortened snout, and a large brain. No, instead we must turn to semantics and understand that it may mean a bishop of highest rank in a province or country. We often ignore that words have no significance of themselves, but gain significance from the meaning they imply.

I would like to provide one more example that ties in with the above assessment. Consider the statement iesous estin theos, ‘Jesus is God.’ The word theos in Greek could mean one of four things: [1] an idol, [2] one of the pagan gods, [3] the Christian Trinitarian God, or [4] the Person of God the Father.

[b]Let us, for the sake of argument, rephrase the statement:[/b]

[1] Jesus is an idol.
[2] Jesus is a pagan god.
[3] Jesus is a member of the Trinity.
[4] Jesus is God the Father.

Which of these is true?

[b]Allow me portray an instance where such distinctions of meaning could cause conflict: [/b]

Theophilus is the Bishop of Alexandria, and Antonius is the Bishop of Antioch.* In a solemn, declaratory letter to his fellow Bishops Theophilus reconfirms the statement, ‘iesous estin theos.’ He affirms that Jesus is God. Antonius is angered by this blasphemous declaration, and responds with a similar letter, denying that Jesus is God.

Both of these men are right, Theophilus affirmed that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, and Antonius denied that Jesus was the Father.

* These are fictional individuals.

[b]Finis:[/b]

My conclusion is if the statement, 'Jesus is God,’ could be so misleading are we not wise enough to acknowledge that language is often the father of conflict. All language is fallible, capable of meaning multiple things and consequently causing confusion to those that designate a word to have only one meaning. Speaking of the fallibility of language, the Bible is not infallible, nor is any translation of the Bible, only the inspired meaning of the Bible holds weight in the hearts of men. Papyrus and ink are very natural substances, but the supernatural scriptures depend upon the meaning that they represent. Is that not what language is? A vessel for abstract and physically inexpressible ideas and intentions.

Again, ‘Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers’ [2 Timothy 2:14] This is the truth of the matter.

[b]Also, Budge here are some logical fallacies you should avoid:[/b]

There are many logical fallacies, perhaps someday in the near future I will address them all, for now, I would like to address some common fallacies I feel are problems.

[b]Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/b] - occurs when something is assumed to be the cause of an event merely because it happened before that event.

Id est - I know a Catholic who was immoral and who committed grievous sins, therefore Catholics are all immoral and sinful.

[b]Bifurcation[/b] - occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist.

Id est - If the Catholic Church doesn't teach that it is faith alone that saves us, then it must teach that men are saved by their own works.

[b]Cum hoc ergo propter hoc[/b] - The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. It's a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause[s] of the events.

Id est - Catholicism is prominent in countries with low literacy rates, such as South America, therefore Catholicism is the religion of the ignorant and illiterate.

[b]Dicto simpliciter[/b] - occurs when a general rule is applied to a particular situation, but the features of that particular situation mean the rule is inapplicable. It's the error made when you go from the general to the specific.

Id est - Catholics generally dislike non-Catholics. You are a Catholic, thus you must dislike non-Catholics.

[b]Straw Man[/b] - is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

Id est - To believe in God, you have to believe with absolute certainty that there is a God. In order to convince yourself with absolute certainty, you must examine the entire Universe and all the places where God could possibly be. Since you obviously haven't, your position is indefensible.

Edited September 28, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Budge]

Can you shorten down some of these posts?

I mean I already spend enough time online and dont want to write a book, just to answer one thread.

Ill answer one point here.
[quote]

However your comparison to the Catholic mentality is a fallacy, you are assuming that by learning and understanding their position, [u]we are indeed learning a necessary fundamental of religion, which we lack.[/u] “Learn from the other,’ infers that we lack something, which we do not.[u] Interfaith dialogue between representatives of diverse faiths, does not necessarily intend reconciling their adherents into full, organic unity with one another. This is improbable, because of obvious contradictions in doctrine and deity. It is, however, necessary, simply to promote better relations.[/u] It promotes toleration, mutual respect [in a secular sense] and cooperation, whether among Christian denominations, or between Christianity and other faiths.[/quote]

I dont believe having a rap session exploring the truths of each others religions converts anyone.

In fact I was converted out of the UU, with major seeds planted by a street preacher who told me...

1. You need Christ.

2. You need to repent and be born again.

3. You will go to hell unless you are saved.

She did not do an exploration of the UU with me to praise the truths of the UU church.

She did not come visit the UU church with me.

She did not have me chant the Great Invocation in her Living Room.

When I witness to unbelievers including a group of Wiccans I know...

I do not invite them over to do spells in my living room...which would be totally akin to what Assisi was...

[thessalonian]

Paul DID know what was going on in Athens.

[Mitchell_b55]

[b]Note Bene[/b] – My posts are a concise as they can be, within the limits of my intention, apologies are offered for your discomfort, but not for the posts length.

[quote]I don’t believe having a rap session exploring the truths of each others religions converts anyone.[/quote]

Very few people would disagree with you. However, you use the [b]Post hoc ergo propter hoc[/b] fallacy so often that it is ridiculous.

Just because Assisi, which I believe was imprudent, invited animists to worship at the altar or wiccans to “do spells in the Church,” doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church, it’s doctrines, or it’s adherents believe this is the way that it should be. Some will be falsely obedient and assume that every action of a Catholic is right, thus support it, but others will look on it as it is to be viewed: An abuse of the ecumenical interfaith dialogue. I have provided a exhaustive and unambiguous definition of Ecumenism. Again:

[quote]…investigating the divine mysteries with the separated brethren must proceed with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility.[/quote]

[quote]The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is Truth.[/quote]

Remember even a pope can commit sin, and while I do not feel qualified make such as judgement, realize that even acceptance by a pontiff of some practice, such as Assisi, does not reflect the entire Church’s position.

In fact I was converted out of the UU, with major seeds planted by a street preacher who told me...

Good for you, however you again use the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

This is what happened to me therefore this must be the way that it happens with everyone. Very few people are susceptible enough to accept something on mere propositions without proof. Proof and Reason are the foundation of humanities belief structure. Revelation must be proved, supernatural events must be proved, or at least we must have firm enough proof in the fundamental belief to accept the miracles and inspiration as true. Things that are vastly contrary to reason are not acceptable without explanation. Faith comes from a fundamental belief that we accept without reasonable doubt, even though many things are singularly unexplainable. In the realm of semantics Protestants often see faith as more than just intellectual assent, however Catholics believe it is just that the intellectual acceptance of Truth. Many Protestants believe that Faith is something that cannot be proven, but faith is trust and we are asked believe. Belief and Trust can be built on reason and revelation supported by reason.

[b]You need Christ. [/b] Why do I need Christ? What does my religion lack in this regard? Can you show me without a question of doubt that I need Christ?

[b]You need to repent and be born again.[/b] Being “Born again”, what does that mean? Why should I confess or repent my guilt is their reason. And don’t tell me that reason is because Christ tells me to, because you still haven’t answered why I need Christ?

[b]You will go to hell unless you are saved.[/b] What does being saved mean? What is hell? Why will I go there?

These are questions that people will ask, and the Bible isn't a good enough answer, because then you need to prove that it is true. Not to mention that God exists at all.

[b]Maybe this is a Muslim[/b]: He will tell you that having a Trinity is Polytheism. You must then explain that he is right about having a monotheistic god, but then you must explain why the Trinity is not polytheistic and is indeed Monotheistic. Why is Jesus more than a Prophet?

I don’t know a lot about Wicca, but if I recently converted a Pagan Mystic who had been in this false belief for 30 years. I started by telling them that even though from a human perspective birth comes from a female, we must look at divinity not from a human perspective, but as beyond humanity. Thus creation doesn’t need a divine feminine, and that God is not philosophically masculine, but that revelation illustrates his appearance as a masculine figure. I said that to be "born" in a human sense is to be reproduced, and that creation was not a reproduction of God, but a creation out of nothing. I took their beliefs and from our dialogue explained the fallacies of them. I was never crude or vulgar, and they are now Christian. I have done likewise with a Stoic, and a Baptist, and not to mention a group of five fundamentalists. I do not claim, as you do, that this is always the case; faith can come from personal revelation and from honest introspection which leads us to an intellectual acceptance. However, this is the most common and most effective form of evangelization.

[Budge]

[quote]
Very few people would disagree with you. However, you use the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy so often that it is ridiculous.
[b]
Just because Assisi, which I believe was imprudent, invited animists to worship at the altar or wiccans to “do spells in the Church,” doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church, it’s doctrines, or it’s adherents believe this is the way that it should be. [/b]Some will be falsely obedient and assume that every action of a Catholic is right, thus support it, but others will look on it as it is to be viewed: An abuse of the ecumenical interfaith dialogue. I have provided a exhaustive and unambiguous definition of Ecumenism. Again:[/quote]

This wasnt just some guy in Boise Idaho having a pow-wow but your TOP religious leader.

If they cant even get things right? Whats the chance for the rest of you.

Also the paperwork defense is lame. If an entire church has officially written we believe Jesus Christ is the only way, but does the complete opposite there4 is a problem.

[quote]aith comes from a fundamental belief that we accept without reasonable doubt, even though many things are singularly unexplainable. In the realm of semantics Protestants often see faith as more than just intellectual assent, however Catholics believe it is just that the intellectual acceptance of Truth. Many Protestants believe that Faith is something that cannot be proven, but faith is trust and we are asked believe. Belief and Trust can be built on reason and revelation supported by reason.[/quote]

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.

Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Basically you are telling me you do not agree with the above.

Why do you think I use so much scripture?

You turn faith into a science experiment even, thinking that Gods Word holds no inherent power to convict or change souls.

[Mitchell_b55]

[quote]This wasnt just some guy in Boise, Idaho having a pow-wow but your TOP religious leader.[/quote]

Yes, I understand this, and it has no effect on the true nature or infallibity of the Mystical Body of Christ. The people that belong to the Church are not "the Church," but only members of it. This means that it's members to not invalidate its validity and truth.

There is a difference between "ecclesia" and "congregatio." A "Church" and a "Group of People."

[quote]If they cant even get things right? Whats the chance for the rest of you.[/quote]

Men are me, and even you are a human being. The pope is human and can thus err and sin. Do you claim indefectability in your actions?

[quote]Also the paperwork defense is lame. If an entire church has officially written we believe Jesus Christ is the only way, but does the complete opposite there is a problem.[/quote]

The Church does not claim that there are other salvific religions, appearances to the contrary. The [b]Prayer Conference at Assisi[/b] did not state that all those religions present were equal in the dignity of truth. Our truth is complete theirs is fractured and fragmented, missing integral pieces, yet still possessing bits of what is necessary, however insufficient.

[quote]Faith comes by hearing the Word of God.[/quote]

I agree, what is the word of God? [Do not respond without reading the rest.]

[quote]So then faith [cometh] from hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[/quote]

The Verse in Greek is as follows:

[quote]αρα η πιστις εξ ακοης η δε ακοη δια ρηματος θεου[/quote]

The portion that translates as the word of God is "δια ρηματος θεου" and translates into Modern Greek as "του λογου του Θεου"

"λογου" or "logos" is as Strong says:

[quote][b]3056.[/b] logos log'-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive; by extension, a computation; specially, (with the article in John) the Divine Expression (i.e. Christ):--account, cause, communication, X concerning, doctrine, fame, X have to do, intent, matter, mouth, preaching, question, reason, + reckon, remove, say(-ing), shew, X speaker, speech, talk, thing, + none of these things move me, tidings, treatise, utterance, word, work. [/quote]

[b]Thus the word of God is not only: [/b]

So then faith [cometh] from hearing, and hearing by the written scripture of God.

[b]But also:[/b]

So then faith [cometh] from hearing, and hearing by the sound of reason which comes from and is God.

Scripture has depths in which a giant must wade, wade my friend.

Edited September 28, 2006 by petrus_scholasticus

[Budge]

[quote]

Yes, I understand this, and it has no effect on the true nature or infallibity of the Mystical Body of Christ. The people that belong to the Church are not "the Church," but only members of it. This means that it's members to not invalidate its validity and truth.[/quote]


[quote]But, then, there is nothing which they dread so much as the testimony of their own Church. ...

IT IS A PRINCIPAL AIM OF ALL [ROMAN CATHOLIC] CONTROVERTISTS TO EMPLOY EVERY MODE OF EVASION IN ORDER TO DISCONCERT THEIR OPPOSERS.
There is even a marked difference between the tone of these Romish Divines
who speak dogmatically for the instruction of their own members
and that of those who attempt to answer the objections of their antagonists.
With the former, all is matter of downright certainty;
with the latter, all is doubt, difficulty, subterfuge, and evasion.

When the faithful are to be instructed, every Priest becomes the sure depositary
of the infallible decisions of an infallible Church;

but when Protestants are to be confuted,
the declarations of their most illustrious men are of no authority.
Councils are discovered to have been but partly approved
[b]Popes did not speak ex cathedra;[/b]Cardinals and Bishops are but private Doctors;
And [b]who cares for the opinion of an obscure Priest or Friar?[/b]Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is; and
WHEN A PROTESTANT ADDUCES THEIR OWN WRITERS AS WITNESSES,
[b]HE IS FREQUENTLY TOLD THAT HE {The Catholic Writter} [u][b]{POPE IN THIS CASE}[/b] [/u] IS A MISREPRESENTER OF THEIR CHURCH”[/b]
(Charles Elliott, Delineation of Roman Catholicism, London: John Mason, 1851, p. 23).[/quote]

[Anomaly]

Budge,
I will agree with the last paragraph of your post there which is one of the many reasons why I am no longer Catholic. But you are even more intellectually dishonest as you hop around pointing out the splinters in the poor catholics who worship their denominational leaders while you do the same with the beam of worshiping your personal interpretation and not answering my challenges. You are no different with your dismissal of common sense and normative reading comprehension skills much less be any sort of example of 'christian charity'. There's nothing charitable about you as there wasn't anything charitable in a sadducee or pharisee.

Edited September 29, 2006 by Anomaly

[Budge]

[quote]I will agree with the last paragraph of your post there which is one of the many reasons why I am no longer Catholic[/quote]

So what are you now?

An agnostic?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I'm sorry that Mr. Elliott did not take the time to understand the Catholic faith. I think the particular difficulty lies in that anti-Catholics seem to think that Catholicism is an individual thing. It's not. The quotes you find from theologians do not necessarily mean anything. It's the things you find from the Church that matter. Thus, his claim ("Thus nothing is so difficult as to know what the belief of Roman Catholics really is") is quite false. I have told you already...the Catechism is a norm of the faith. Yet you have still refused to pick a topic from it for debate. I was handing you a chance to know for certain that you had the Church's teachings in hand. No Catholic can say that the Catechism is wrong on any point. We wouldn't have been able to use the "tactics" you accuse us of. What a shame you didn't take me seriously when I offered.

[Budge]

[quote]No Catholic can say that the Catechism is wrong on any point. [/quote]

Is the Catechism infallible?

{I know the answer but I want you to answer}

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Budge' post='1079232' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:42 PM']
So what are you now?

An agnostic?
[/quote]
No. I believe in God, His salvific grace, His faithfullness, His Justice, His Mercy, and my need for God. I'm absolutely positive I don't want to be anything like you.

[thessalonian]

[quote]who worship their denominational leaders[/quote]



Your calling budge intellectually honest is kinda pot and kettle I think.

Edited September 29, 2006 by thessalonian

[Budge]

So what are you?

Protestant, Christian, Anglican?


So what Catholic doctrines and disciplines do you disagree with?

Do you believe in Transubstantiation?


You seem to be kind of a contradictory sort of fellow mad at someone who disagrees with the teaching of a CHURCH YOU ADMIT YOU LEFT.

That makes no sense.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Budge' post='1079268' date='Sep 29 2006, 12:53 PM']
So what are you?

Protestant, Christian, Anglican?
So what Catholic doctrines and disciplines do you disagree with?

Do you believe in Transubstantiation?
You seem to be kind of a contradictory sort of fellow mad at someone who disagrees with the teaching of a CHURCH YOU ADMIT YOU LEFT.

That makes no sense.
[/quote]It's quite telling you immediately twist things around to what's wrong with the catholics and not dare ask what I disagree with you on.