Jan Hus

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='Slappo' date='05 October 2009 - 02:12 PM' timestamp='1254769971' post='1978338']
Wait really? That's true? No way! [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/saint.gif[/img]

Everything has to be read in the light of 2000 years of tradition... that's what's so cool about Catholicism [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/cool.gif[/img]

And what makes it so hard to read Catholic theology [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif[/img]
[/quote]

Slappo, the word of God is strong enough to stand on its own and does not need to be read in light of "tradition". Jesus condemns tradition in various places, but of course Catholicism escapes that by saying, "oh He meant tradition with a little t, but He said nothing against tradition with a big T. When will the madness end? What's worse, you can't name one tradition you are holding that can be traced directly back to the apostles! Whatever you reply will simply be a "tradition", and thus you end up arguing in circles. To put these "infallible" yet undefined traditions on the same level as Holy Writ as your church has decreed, is horrifying. The Lord has put HIS WORD, even above His very name, and consequently, "tradition" cannot be of equal value (Ps 138:2).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 October 2009 - 06:46 PM' timestamp='1254786408' post='1978592']
What's worse, you can't name one tradition you are holding that can be traced directly back to the apostles!
[/quote]

I would start with Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist as traditions that can be traced directly the apostolic age, though there are certainly many more I could name.

[Winchester]

Annointing of the Sick, as well.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 October 2009 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1254786408' post='1978592']
Slappo, the word of God is strong enough to stand on its own and does not need to be read in light of "tradition". Jesus condemns tradition in various places, but of course Catholicism escapes that by saying, "oh He meant tradition with a little t, but He said nothing against tradition with a big T. When will the madness end? What's worse, you can't name one tradition you are holding that can be traced directly back to the apostles! Whatever you reply will simply be a "tradition", and thus you end up arguing in circles. To put these "infallible" yet undefined traditions on the same level as Holy Writ as your church has decreed, is horrifying. The Lord has put HIS WORD, even above His very name, and consequently, "tradition" cannot be of equal value (Ps 138:2).
[/quote]
But also:
[quote]That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity. 12 But we ought to give thanks to God always for you, brethren, beloved of God, for that God hath chosen you firstfruits unto salvation, in sanctification of the spirit, and faith of the truth: 13 Whereunto also he hath called you by our gospel, unto the purchasing of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 14 Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 15 Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God and our Father, who hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation, and good hope in grace, [/quote]

You should like that, it comes from the Bible you used for the other verse. You know, the one you didn't acknowledge is translated differently in another translation.

How many feet can a man shoot himself in?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 October 2009 - 04:12 PM' timestamp='1254773573' post='1978362']
My child.....the point was to incite the man to check things out before making such bogus claims about the Lord Jesus Christ. You take things far too literally. Oh yes, I forgot, you're a Catholic, and when Jesus said to "Eat me", you don't want to discuss the massive amount of evidence that supports He was NOT speaking literally, --oh no, we can't have that. He said EAT ME, and the case is closed.
[/quote]

He said a bit more than "eat me."

John 6:48-67

[sup]48[/sup][b]I am the bread of life.[/b]

[sup]49[/sup]Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died. [sup]

50[/sup]But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die.

[sup]51[/sup]Iam the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. [b]This bread is my flesh[/b], which I will give for the life of the world." [sup]

52[/sup]T[b]hen the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" [/b]

[sup]53[/sup][b]Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. [/b]

[sup]54[/sup]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.

[sup]55[/sup][b]For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. [/b]

[sup]56[/sup]Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

[sup]57[/sup]Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. [sup]
[/sup]
[sup]58[/sup]This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." [sup]

5[/sup][sup]9[/sup]He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

[sup]60[/sup][b]On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

[/b][sup]61[/sup][b]Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, "Does this scandalize you? [/b]

[sup]62[/sup]What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!

[sup]63[/sup]The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[sup][[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206#fen-NIV-26310e"]e[/url]][/sup] and they are life.

[sup]64[/sup]Yet there are some of you who do not believe." For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

[sup]65[/sup]He went on to say, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him."

[sup]66[/sup][b]From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.[/b]

[sup]67[/sup]"You do not want to leave too, do you?" Jesus asked the Twelve.


[url="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%206"]http://www.biblegate...search=john%206[/url]



Note that when the Jews were shocked and questioned what he said, Jesus did not say, "Whoah, you're misreading me, guys, don't jump the gun!" And when his own disciples said, "This is a hard saying: how can anyone accept it?" and walked away, he didn't call after them, "Hey, fellows, don't go! It was only a [i]metaphor.[/i] What I meant by 'my flesh' was really 'the substance of what I'm saying,' you dig?" No. He said, "Does this scandalize you?" Then he let them go. He and they both knew what he meant, and he let them go without giving the slightest hint that there was any misunderstanding.

~Sternhauser

Edited October 6, 2009 by Sternhauser

[Winchester]

Everyone note: When 95+ makes a mistake, he will generally not acknowledge it. Often, he will not respond at all, hoping people will forget it, perhaps. His misinterpretation of ordinary vs. extraordinary membership in the Church is a great example. I forget the paragraph. Since I called him on it, I have not seen him bring it up, nor have I seen him challenge my understanding of it. It was shortly after I began pointing out his error that he suddenly became 'outraged' and said he was done with me. I've never had the patience to simply repeatedly post such shenanigans, but I've encountered them several times. Also note that though I myself have acknowledged my error about the command to write down the Apocalypse (and only that--a point he has failed to acknowledge) he will bring it up again. He also likes to hammer on my drinking, although I gave him sound advice on how to avoid a hangover. I could also help him develop his lats properly.

This latest ill-informed tirade will probably result is a fit-pitching akin to the one in which he announced he was done with me. He isn't of course. He reads every one of my posts and responds to them indirectly. He probably has a blog in which I am featured prominently. Eventually, Stockholm syndrome will take over and he will propose marriage. I will have to refuse, of course, and he will be crushed. But 95+ will overcome because he is like John the Baptist, Jesus and Lance Armstrong all rolled into one.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well that pretty much makes my day.

[Winchester]

The people who followed Hus were called Hussies.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='05 October 2009 - 05:28 PM' timestamp='1254781681' post='1978503']
The logical obsurdity of this is that Catholicism DOES NOT DENY the metaphorical components of the Eucharist. Certainly bread is a metaphore so you run to the metaphroical aspects and say they are proof for your and against us. We agree to the metaphore but do not see why it has to be limited to JUST metaphore. It is clear from reading Augustine, Tertullian, and others that they saw the metaphore but saw the deeper reality of the real prescence. Protestants have a hard time seeing this because they are trained in the dichotomous thinking of man. Either/or rather than both/and. You trumpt the passages of John 6:52-54 etc. with the figurative passages just like you do with faith and works, seeing Rom 3:38 and Eph 2:8-9 as trump verses over Rom 2:4-8, Matt 25, sheep and goats, and John 15. Faith or works is not biblical. Faith working out in love is.
[/quote]

Thess,

You cannot name one Protestant in history that denied "faith working through love" being absolutely essential to salvation, so kindly stop insinuating it.

The first logical obsurdity to your thesis of embracing the "both/and" rubric, is that it is frought with too many theological inconsistencies to name here----not the least of which would be....
Why not celibate priests AND married priests?
Why not male priests AND women?
Why not normal marriage AND gay unions?

Another insurmountable obstacle is Vatican 1 announcing that no one can be saved if we don't believe that Peter was the first Pope. What I mean by that is, the HISTORICAL tradition, which is easily verifiable, will demonstrate that one after the other of the early fathers did indeed see that the Rock on which Christ was to build His church was to be the FAITH that Peter expressed and NOT Peter Himself (CCC #424). Some of course did see Peter as the Rock and thus, the "BOTH/AND" concept WAS the tradition of the church. However, the "deeper reality" (to use your words) of what Christ meant was supposedly revealed 1800 years later at Vatican 1, but it would now be an EITHER/OR ultimatum: From that point on, they reinvented history by falsely proclaiming that Peter being the Rock spoken of in Matt 16 was a "unanimous" belief down thru the ages! Don't you doubt for a moment that not a few at Vatican 1 were shocked out of their clerical socks when they heard that little fairy tale. Those familiar with history KNEW very well it wasn't unanimous AT ALL. Some even made special pleading to stop papal infallibilty from being voted in based on this completely groundless foundation of a "unanimous" belief in Peter as the Rock. But on to define the dogma they did, and it is now, "EITHER" we believe Peter was made leader of the church militant, "ORRRRR", it's off to hell in a handbasket we go.

Protestants BOTH laugh at such ultimatums, AND are rightly indignant when we see poor souls being deceived into putting their trust into anything but the cross-work of Christ.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 October 2009 - 08:57 PM' timestamp='1254790620' post='1978657']
The first logical obsurdity to your thesis of embracing the "both/and" rubric, is that it is frought with too many theological inconsistencies to name here----not the least of which would be....
Why not celibate priests AND married priests?[/quote]
Actually, we have that. But 95+ knows this, certainly.


[quote]Why not male priests AND women?[/quote]
OH MY GOD! THERE ARE DOCUMENTS OUT THERE! (haha, a little imitation.)



[quote]Why not normal marriage AND gay unions?
[/quote]
This is also explained. And the reason for everything not being "and" based is?

drum roll


Context!

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 October 2009 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1254790620' post='1978657']
Thess,

You cannot name one Protestant in history that denied "faith working through love" being absolutely essential to salvation, so kindly stop insinuating it.

The first logical obsurdity to your thesis of embracing the "both/and" rubric, is that it is frought with too many theological inconsistencies to name here----not the least of which would be....
Why not celibate priests AND married priests?
Why not male priests AND women?
Why not normal marriage AND gay unions?

Another insurmountable obstacle is Vatican 1 announcing that no one can be saved if we don't believe that Peter was the first Pope. What I mean by that is, the HISTORICAL tradition, which is easily verifiable, will demonstrate that one after the other of the early fathers did indeed see that the Rock on which Christ was to build His church was to be the FAITH that Peter expressed and NOT Peter Himself (CCC #424). Some of course did see Peter as the Rock and thus, the "BOTH/AND" concept WAS the tradition of the church. However, the "deeper reality" (to use your words) of what Christ meant was supposedly revealed 1800 years later at Vatican 1, but it would now be an EITHER/OR ultimatum: From that point on, they reinvented history by falsely proclaiming that Peter being the Rock spoken of in Matt 16 was a "unanimous" belief down thru the ages! Don't you doubt for a moment that not a few at Vatican 1 were shocked out of their clerical socks when they heard that little fairy tale. Those familiar with history KNEW very well it wasn't unanimous AT ALL. Some even made special pleading to stop papal infallibilty from being voted in based on this completely groundless foundation of a "unanimous" belief in Peter as the Rock. But on to define the dogma they did, and it is now, "EITHER" we believe Peter was made leader of the church militant, "ORRRRR", it's off to hell in a handbasket we go.

Protestants BOTH laugh at such ultimatums, AND are rightly indignant when we see poor souls being deceived into putting their trust into anything but the cross-work of Christ.
[/quote]

I don't think it was for nothing that Simon Bar-Jona's name was changed to Cephas (cf. John 1:42)

[Selah]

[quote]Dear His Child,

Or are you really? [/quote]

And just who the heck made you the judge of her soul?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Selah' date='05 October 2009 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1254791451' post='1978683']
And just who the heck made you the judge of her soul?
[/quote]
My bad. For what it's worth, I really regret the decision and I'm filing the paperwork to turn the job over to Kim Jong Il.

[Selah]

Stormstopper doesn't like me

[Winchester]

Let him eat fish heads.