| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 4:08:40 PM
It seems that the Protestnat Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver staying to engage in any frank discussion. Very typical.
I hae made a number of charges about Protestantism that the pundits refuse to refute. Some of them are:
1) Protestantism alleges that it uses the Bible as its 'sole rule of faith' but whne Protestant dogma conflicts with the LITERAL words of Scripture they either ignore the Bible or try and distort it to mean the exact opposite of it says.
2) Protestantism is theological Pelagianism. protestnat pundits try to claim that by mere human effort they can discern the eternal verities in Scripture. Meanwhile Catholicism insists that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit as taught in Scripture (John 14: 16-18, 26 & 16:13, Matthew 10:17-20 & 16:16-20, Luke 10:16) is necessary to do this and Scripture alone is not formally sufficient.
3) At the heart of the Protestant revolt was Luther's manic-depression illness. It struck a chord among those in northern Europe because of widepread melancholia of both genetic, somatic (i.e., Seasonal Affective Disorder) and toxic origins (i.e., Ergotism- St. Anthony's Fire). In short, the real causes of Protestantism were mental illness and delirium that included in their symptoms depression, poor self image, unfocused paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and a lack of ego syntonics.
4) The battle cry of the so-called "reformation" ('Justification by Faith with good works') is in direct LITERAL contradiction to the teaching of the Bible in several places most notably Romans 6 and James 2:20-24.
There are several other points that I have made, but I find these the most devastating.
I invite my Protestant opponents to respond.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| 29 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 8:07:15 PM
Tim tries to be cute:
quote:
Do you mean like "“There is no one righteous, not even one" niv ?
Exactly, Tim. By interpreting this text in a CRASSLY LITERAL fashion, you make Jesus a sinner by necessity just like your hero Luther did in his Table Talks when he called Jesus an adulterer.
But actually I was thinking of James 2;24, Matt 16:16-20; Matt 18:18; 2Pet 1:15FF; Matt 10:18-20; Luke 10:16; John 6:53ff; 1Cor 10:14-21; Romans 6; Romans 2:5-16; and a host of others.
Theological Pelagianism means that Protestants depend on their own abilities to discern the truth of hte Christian faitha nd not on the Holy Spirit. As such, they feel free to contradict the solemn teachings of the historic Church and EVEN the BIBLE when these contradict Protestanat systematic theology. Protestants always appeal to scholarship or the right of "private interpretation" which boils down to the same thing as depending on one's own efforts to earn salvation.
THE POINT of Romans 6 is that we are not imputed as righteous but made a new creation in Christ as servants of righteousness. And that it is through this sanctifying righteouness that we gain eternal life (Rom 6:21). This is what Trent taught (and what St. Paul taught in Romans 2:5ff.)
St. James makes it clear that a TRUE faith is COMPLETED by works (James 2:22) so that in the absence of good works there is no faith. The idea of 'faith alone apart from good works' is a biblical oxymoron.
Luther knew that his version of JBFA contradicted St. James and that is why he tried to remove it from the Bible. he was oneof the few honest Protestnats when it came to that epistle.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 7:47:42 PM
quote:
“There is no one righteous, not even one"
Romans 3:10 addresses the universal need of the human race for a Savior. If this is in reference to Mary, she was saved by Christ's sacrifice from Original Sin and its effects, so she needed Him as her Savior, too. That doesn't negate the possibility of the Immaculate Conception, if that was the point. Properly understood, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception does not contradict and in fact confirms Romans 3:10.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 6:02:38 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]It seems that the Protestnat Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver staying to engage in any frank discussion. Very typical......
....(In short, the real causes of Protestantism were mental illness and delirium that included in their symptoms depression, poor self image, unfocused paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and a lack of ego syntonics.)
Sorry as we've been getting ready to drill at my work I've found myself needing to balance my time and energy more sparsely then I would like, though I've wanted to do much more.
quote:
1) Protestantism alleges that it uses the Bible as its 'sole rule of faith' but whne Protestant dogma conflicts with the LITERAL words of Scripture they either ignore the Bible or try and distort it to mean the exact opposite of it says.
Do you mean like "“There is no one righteous, not even one"niv ?
quote:
2) Protestantism is theological Pelagianism. protestnat pundits try to claim that by mere human effort they can discern the eternal verities in Scripture. Meanwhile Catholicism insists that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit as taught in Scripture (John 14: 16-18, 26 & 16:13, Matthew 10:17-20 & 16:16-20, Luke 10:16) is necessary to do this and Scripture alone is not formally sufficient.
Can you expound on this more so I can understand better?
quote:
4) The battle cry of the so-called "reformation" ('Justification by Faith with good works') is in direct LITERAL contradiction to the teaching of the Bible in several places most notably Romans 6 and James 2:20-24.
Can you point me to the point about Romans 6 you had made? I think you will like this article on "Legalism & License". http://bit.ly/cBnUtQ
You don't like the idea that James differentiates a dead faith from a living one?
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/02/2010 : 3:59:53 PM
John sez:
quote:
If a Protestant, or a Protestant "neo" Catholic, comes here and clicks on "Apologetics" he/she should get ready for debate. Ralph, for example, knows exactly what he is doing.
Exactly.
What I am always hoping for is for some Protestant to say to me, "Now I understand why you beleive that." It never seems to happen. they are to busy tellng me how 'wrong" I am., or how no one else ever thought of that interpreation so it can't be true, or how my opinion is my own and not that of the Magsiterium (about which they usually are VERY wrong), or some such dodge by which they try to save face. So far I ahve never had a Protestant Controversialist admit that the Catholic Church either COULD be right or at least have a point in her objections to his religion.
I see this as a lack of humility before the mysteries and a flagrant exercise of "Theological Pelagianism."
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| john654 |
Posted - 02/02/2010 : 09:10:57 AM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Jjane[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]The Talonic Law (an eye for an eye) was actually a law that restricted retribution. It did not permit taking a life for an eye or a head for a tooth. And this does happen to be the basis of just legal retribution even today.
As a soldier I used to run into this 'turn the other cheek' boojum all the time. Context is everything. How many folks out there think teh USA should have 'turned the other cheek' after 9-11?
When you are debating, mirroring our opponent's bad habits is a legitimate way of making a point. There are MORAL limits of course, but accusing a material heretic of being a heretic and hence not being a member in good standing of Christ's Church is just plain fair. Sorry if it hurts their feelings, but it is TRUE and they need to hear it. ESPECIALLY whne they say something similar about us.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
I think we should stick to the "eye for an eye argument" and not get sidetracked to defense policy !
What does Jesus policy of turning the other cheek mean for Christians, never mind defending one' country from terrorists.
Of course that cannot be tolerated. But on the other hand,
even in war there ought to be honesty about goals ....
But for Christians I put it to you that allowing the other fellow to be unresisted, is not easy.
So what does it actually mean? We could argue that for days.
I think we have to remember that Christianity means forgiving one's enemies, like John Paul II. 
Turning the other cheek means: to always speak the truth, and sometimes that means we must admonish the sinner. We have to remember that this site is an apologetic forum. If a Protestant, or a Protestant "neo" Catholic, comes here and clicks on "Apologetics" he/she should get ready for debate. Ralph, for example, knows exactly what he is doing.
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
| Jjane |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 10:41:55 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]The Talonic Law (an eye for an eye) was actually a law that restricted retribution. It did not permit taking a life for an eye or a head for a tooth. And this does happen to be the basis of just legal retribution even today.
As a soldier I used to run into this 'turn the other cheek' boojum all the time. Context is everything. How many folks out there think teh USA should have 'turned the other cheek' after 9-11?
When you are debating, mirroring our opponent's bad habits is a legitimate way of making a point. There are MORAL limits of course, but accusing a material heretic of being a heretic and hence not being a member in good standing of Christ's Church is just plain fair. Sorry if it hurts their feelings, but it is TRUE and they need to hear it. ESPECIALLY whne they say something similar about us.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
I think we should stick to the "eye for an eye argument" and not get sidetracked to defense policy !
What does Jesus policy of turning the other cheek mean for Christians, never mind defending one' country from terrorists.
Of course that cannot be tolerated. But on the other hand,
even in war there ought to be honesty about goals ....
But for Christians I put it to you that allowing the other fellow to be unresisted, is not easy.
So what does it actually mean? We could argue that for days.
I think we have to remember that Christianity means forgiving one's enemies, like John Paul II.
|
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/01/2010 : 2:36:21 PM
The Talonic Law (an eye for an eye) was actually a law that restricted retribution. It did not permit taking a life for an eye or a head for a tooth. And this does happen to be the basis of just legal retribution even today.
As a soldier I used to run into this 'turn the other cheek' boojum all the time. Context is everything. How many folks out there think teh USA should have 'turned the other cheek' after 9-11?
When you are debating, mirroring our opponent's bad habits is a legitimate way of making a point. There are MORAL limits of course, but accusing a material heretic of being a heretic and hence not being a member in good standing of Christ's Church is just plain fair. Sorry if it hurts their feelings, but it is TRUE and they need to hear it. ESPECIALLY whne they say something similar about us.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Jjane |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 7:09:30 PM
Jesus said: I did not come so that there would be peace, but a sword. I have come so that a man's enemies would be those of his own household.
That is New testament. I think Patti is correct that the new Covenant is more demanding. Anyway Art has not removed too many eyes on this forum , at least to my knowledge.
But Jesus did call the Pharisees blind guides, because they ought to have known better... they could not plead ignorance.
Debating is another story. Sometimes Jesus of course did not enter into debate - he just drove 'em out of the temple.
There is a tale about St Philip I think...
in trying to persuade some young men of the error of their ways - he let them have a glimpse of hell - or punishment.
THat did the trick when argument did not. |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 6:30:12 PM
quote:
Tit for tat is just another way of saying "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."
Right, indeed, that was the Old Testament law, which pointed to the New Testament law, which is: "Love your enemies. Do good to those who hurt you." The old prepared the way for the new. 
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 5:45:22 PM
Patti commented:
quote:
To pay back ill treatment for ill treatment is pagan, not Christian.
Oh, I don't know. People are DAMNED TO HELL for doing bad things. Dante wrote a classic masterpiece showing how in Hell, the punishment would fit the crime. Tit for tat is just another way of saying "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." Are we going to acuse God of not being 'chrisitan.' ;-)
It is said that imitation is the highest form of flattery. Well it is also the most devastating critique. When you do unto others as they have done unto you, it sometimes teaches them a lesson. But only when they are smart and have at least a modicum of moral consciousness. Sadly, most of the anti-catholic bigots (ACBs) that we deal with are shameless and amoral.
At one point or another when you are DEBATING you are not trying to turn the other cheek but to strike a blow for the truth. To mirror your opponent's own tactics back to him is completely ordinate.
I always have to remind people that Jesus pulled no punches. He wasn't being very pastoral when he said:
Matt 15:26 It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
The term we translate as "Dog" is a very nasty insult in that idiom.
And he also called the Pharisees "hypocrites" and "Blind guides".
So let us be a little more discerning. Turnabout is fairplay and anyone who is not prepared to give as good as he gets has no business in debating.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 11:57:42 AM
No, they were two different people. One was a sede and the other was a Protestant who denied the necessity of water baptism because matter can't be used to impart spiritual effects. He confused sacraments instituted by Christ with "magic". This is a form of Gnostic duality.
The only thing the two boys had in common was an inability to interact with others with a modicum of charity. But they were not the same guy; that much I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt.
As for being afraid, some have imbibed so much human and diabolical venom against the Church that they hate what they've been told about her instead of hating her. To paraphrase Fulton Sheen: "Nobody really hates the Catholic Church. They only hate what they think is the Catholic Church."
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Jjane |
Posted - 01/30/2010 : 11:28:06 AM
Well not to be too morbid Patti, but in your above, are you suggesting that the person who sat at dying folk's bedside and the troll of you know who, are not one and the same. Honestly. How low can you go? I wonder why people are afraid of our Church? |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 10:38:15 AM
quote:
I got an e-mail from a Protestnat punpit who shal remain namelss but whose initials are Jimmy Swan. He was all cut up about being banned from this board. Golly!
That happened before I joined the board. There have been a handful of others since then, including a sede who played coy about his heresy while he stalked my posts and was snide to everyone here, a guy who used to hang out by dying people's bedsides to try to scare them out of being Catholic, and someone who was working as a troll for someone whose last name starts with a W and ends with a hite. A couple have even asked to be removed by their own desire, but it wasn't due to how they were treated.
In any case, Ralph and other non-Catholics, if you have your side to present, please do so. I'm interested in hearing why you hold your beliefs to be true. I'll read and treat your points with respect, too.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 10:23:05 AM
I got an e-mail from a Protestant pundit who shal remain nameless but whose initials are Jimmy Swan. He was all cut up about being banned from this board. Golly!
I wrote back to him that this is only done to the REALLY nasty people. I wonder if he got the hint?
For those who do not know this fellow, he thinks that Catholics should ignore the general historical consensus that Luther was mentally disturbed and instead accept the position of Fr. Josef Lortz, a german priest in the 1930s who was a CARD CARRYING NAZI and who (among other things) wrote an extended defense of Hitler's book Mein Kampf in contradiction to the position taken by the German hierarchy. Luther was a great hero to the Nazis for a variety of reasons including his rejection of 'decandent' Rome for 'modern' German values and his snti-Semitism.
art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 10:07:47 AM
quote:
Ralph, I hate to say it, but you just get back what you give.
Tsk, tsk, Art. To pay back ill treatment for ill treatment is pagan, not Christian. And actually, Ralph himself hasn't been so bad to people here.
quote:
If yo were honest about it, you would admit that IN YOUR SYSTEM we Catholics are entitled to our opinons and you should respect them in the same manner that you want us to respect yours. But that never happens.
True, that. However, their refusal to treat us so does point to the underlying realization that Catholics hold the position that theirs is the one true faith and Protestantism is a derivative thereof, not the purified form that's claimed. In that sense, they are giving an appropriate response; they fight against that concept instead of acknowledging the relationship of full Gospel and partial one.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 10:02:27 AM
Ralph, I hate to say it, but you just get back what you give. Anti-Catholic controversialists say some pretty scurrilous and untrue things about us all the time and we are expected to take it all with good humor. A Protestant controversialist of my acquaintance told me once that he was highly insulted that I did not agree with his opinions after he had travelled "all that way" to teach me the 'gospel'. It seemed to me that he did not think that any opinion other than his own was worth believing.
And I must say that the level of argument becomes extreme poor when an opponent ignores the LITERAL meaning of a biblical text and goes spouting off on his personal preferences in theology as if that should convince me. Or when he just plain ignores what I am saying.
The bottom line as I see it is that Protestantism is a hodge-podge of personal opinions dressed up as 'religious truth'. If yo were honest about it, you would admit that IN YOUR SYSTEM we Catholics are entitled to our opinons and you should respect them in the same manner that you want us to respect yours. But that never happens.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 10:02:08 AM
quote:
I have had my motives attacked, morality attacked, love for God attacked, intellect attacked and so on. Instead of just sticking with the topic! How long do you think someone can endure this kind of anti gang up on anyone who is not Catholic treatment? Unless you don’t want none Catholics on this site. If so post it, Non-Catholics NOT welcome.
Your system has been attacked, not you personally. But if certain people cross the line, they're dealt with no matter what faith they are. Believe me, it's a lot kinder and gentler here than at some other fora, including some big mainstream ones. Some places ban folks for just disagreeing or defending their faith on both sides.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 09:57:25 AM
Well, Ralph, let's see....
Tim posts things that disagree with Church teaching and they stay up.
Algo posted things that disagreed with Church teaching and they stayed up. They're still up.
Ditto a whole bunch of other Protestant posts.
You post things that disagree with Church teaching and they stay up.
However, when posts go from disagreeing with Church teaching to mocking people here, they either get edited or removed. And that goes for everyone here, Catholic or not. See a pattern?
So, please quit wasting my time and yours, and stick to points and not persons in your disagreement. That's all it takes to keep your stuff here. (And we'll both be much happier. )
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Ralph |
Posted - 01/29/2010 : 09:16:13 AM
I have had my motives attacked, morality attacked, love for God attacked, intellect attacked and so on. Instead of just sticking with the topic! How long do you think someone can endure this kind of anti gang up on anyone who is not Catholic treatment? Unless you don’t want none Catholics on this site. If so post it, Non-Catholics NOT welcome. |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 11:59:27 PM
quote:
One year as of January 17th.
Happy first anniversary to you and your wife. 
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 11:55:29 PM
quote:
It seems that the Protestnat Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver staying to engage in any frank discussion.
Seems to be the case. Of course, someone could offer a fair explanation of his beliefs and change that pattern. Others here do try and it's interesting to read.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Jjane |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 10:16:31 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]Here are a few references:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14891
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Anthony's_fire
http://buff-history.buzzsugar.com/1560874
Art
Thanks Art. 
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
|
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 10:06:05 PM
Here are a few references:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=14891
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Anthony's_fire
http://buff-history.buzzsugar.com/1560874
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Jjane |
Posted - 01/28/2010 : 10:04:36 AM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]WOW! It's been a whole year. That's wonderful. Well how has it been since you 'poped'?
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
I hate to say I don't know what St Anthony's fire is. But I will look it up.
If you don't feel completely well informed don't feel alone Rob, I still feel like I'm catching up. We started out with a banned catechism, and then everyone was revolting against VAtican II. So hey
not my fault !!
LIke running a long race uphill.
But that's ok really. It still feels like home. |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/27/2010 : 5:43:54 PM
WOW! It's been a whole year. That's wonderful. Well how has it been since you 'poped'?
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| rr1213 |
Posted - 01/27/2010 : 1:28:54 PM
One year as of January 17th. |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/27/2010 : 11:46:19 AM
Well... some have. Ralph sure hasn't. Tim Bulley is still out there as is Tim Enloe. And we WON'T mention Pseudopodeo 'cause he's so vain he probably thinks this post is about him.
C'mon sepbreth. Let's mix it up!
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| rr1213 |
Posted - 01/27/2010 : 10:45:22 AM
They converted to the Catholic faith. |
| john654 |
Posted - 01/26/2010 : 6:53:33 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]It seems that the Protestnat Pundits just kind of drop in to give a few insults and then run away newver staying to engage in any frank discussion. Very typical.
I hae made a number of charges about Protestantism that the pundits refuse to refute. Some of them are:
1) Protestantism alleges that it uses the Bible as its 'sole rule of faith' but whne Protestant dogma conflicts with the LITERAL words of Scripture they either ignore the Bible or try and distort it to mean the exact opposite of it says.
2) Protestantism is theological Pelagianism. protestnat pundits try to claim that by mere human effort they can discern the eternal verities in Scripture. Meanwhile Catholicism insists that the superintendence of the Holy Spirit as taught in Scripture (John 14: 16-18, 26 & 16:13, Matthew 10:17-20 & 16:16-20, Luke 10:16) is necessary to do this and Scripture alone is not formally sufficient.
3) At the heart of the Protestant revolt was Luther's manic-depression illness. It struck a chord among those in northern Europe because of widepread melancholia of both genetic, somatic (i.e., Seasonal Affective Disorder) and toxic origins (i.e., Ergotism- St. Anthony's Fire). In short, the real causes of Protestantism were mental illness and delirium that included in their symptoms depression, poor self image, unfocused paranoia, delusions of grandeur, and a lack of ego syntonics.
4) The battle cry of the so-called "reformation" ('Justification by Faith with good works') is in direct LITERAL contradiction to the teaching of the Bible in several places most notably Romans 6 and James 2:20-24.
There are several other points that I have made, but I find these the most devastating.
I invite my Protestant opponents to respond.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
Art,
I guess you need to let them win one once in a while.
NA!
John
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
|
|
