Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Works and Grace II

Works and Grace II for Alan (Rhology)

Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Scott Windsor is cool with private interpretation. Why aren't you?

Mr Windsor, thanks for the time!
I just used the Eph 2 post as an example of what I was trying to bring out back at the Beggars All combox. Just to rundown for those who might not have read all that interaction...

Over here at BA, we make various arguments from the Bible against RC dogma. RCs come along and comment, and one of their principal arguments against our position is "That's just your private interpretation. We have an infallible interpreter, and so we can be sure that what the Magisterium says is the valid interp of the Bible, since she is the church founded by Christ and the gates of Hell won't prevail against her. Since you just have your private fallible interpretation, I don't need to pay attention to your contentions".

My Response:
"That's just your private interpretation" may be valid - depending on the context. If you're offering a private interpretation which differs from an infallibly defined definition (dogma) then we would have to reject your private interpretation on that given matter - but you're speaking in hypotheticals to me, and not a tangible conversation for me to comment on.

Alan continues:
He was honest enough to admit, in the 02Nov post, that his apologetic blogging is not submitted to the RCC either (but that he will heretofore make his priest aware of it). I thanked him for his honesty and pointed out that the logical outworking of this fact is that he does not consider this common argument made by other RCs at various times in the past (I am unaware whether Mr Windsor has ever used this ridiculous argument) to be a valid one. I used the Eph 2 post as an example of that, asking Mr Windsor whether he would use that argument to overturn what I'd said in the 2007 post on Eph 2. It looks like the answer is mostly no, but I am a bit quizzical on Mr Windsor's request for specifics (see the end of his post).

My Response:
I did not say I would go to my priest, but to my bishop - and I have written him.

As for the "ridiculous argument" comment - as I said - it may be quite valid, depending on the situation.

Would I use "that's just your personal interpretation" regarding Alan's use of the Eph. 2 post? No, and I answered the Eph. 2 post directly and you largely avoided dealing with what I had to say there. In fact, I get the impression that you're largely into the invalid "bait and switch" tactic - wherein you involve yourself in a discussion and then before it's over you start throwing other topics into the mix to distract and dissuade from the original topic. Such diversions are confusion tactics - and the Father of Confusion is whom you are serving when you sink to such. Stick to the topic at hand, Alan. (This becomes quite clear a little further into this post).

Alan continues:
Have you really never seen that argument used before? Not even once? Never listened to, for example, any of the many debates that James White has done with RCs over the years, wherein the RC apologists use that argument over and over?

My Response:
Alan, I am one of the first Catholics White engaged online, in fact his first couple books on Catholicism (at least) he has (informally) credited to debates between himself and me - of course MY SIDE is never fully utilized in those books, but that's a topic for another discussion. My response to you did not say anything about me never seeing that argument before. I asked you for specific cases so that I would not be commenting on intangible hypothetical arguments which quickly become moving targets.


Alan continues:
Take a couple of examples, and please know that I am trying to be very specific in my question. I don't want to get into an extended debate on the subject matter itself, but rather on the principle of "he was only speaking as a private theologian/individual, not for the entire Church" nonsense.

My Response:
You're the one asking me questions - this debate extends for as long as you are asking me valid and on-topic questions.

Alan quotes:
"Moreover, I have heard that certain persons have this grievance against me: When I accompanied you to the holy place called Bethel, there to join you in celebrating the Collect, after the use of the Church, I came to a villa called Anablatha and, as I was passing, saw a lamp burning there. Asking what place it was, and learning it to be a church, I went in to pray, and found there a curtain hanging on the doors of the said church, dyed and embroidered. It bore an image either of Christ or of one of the saints; I do not rightly remember whose the image was. Seeing this, and being loth that an image of a man should be hung up in Christ's church contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures, I tore it asunder and advised the custodians of the place to use it as a winding sheet for some poor person. They, however, murmured, and said that if I made up my mind to tear it, it was only fair that I should give them another curtain in its place. As soon as I heard this, I promised that I would give one, and said that I would send it at once. Since then there has been some little delay, due to the fact that I have been seeking a curtain of the best quality to give to them instead of the former one, and thought it right to send to Cyprus for one. I have now sent the best that I could find, and I beg that you will order the presbyter of the place to take the curtain which I have sent from the hands of the Reader, and that you will afterwards give directions that curtains of the other sort--opposed as they are to our religion--shall not be hung up in any church of Christ. A man of your uprightness should be careful to remove an occasion of offence unworthy alike of the Church of Christ and of those Christians who are committed to your charge." - Epiphanius (Jerome's Letter 51:9)

"Others of them employ outward marks, branding their disciples inside the lobe of the right ear. From among these also arose Marcellina, who came to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, and, holding these doctrines, she led multitudes astray. They style themselves Gnostics. They also possess images, some of them painted, and others formed from different kinds of material; while they maintain that a likeness of Christ was made by Pilate at that time when Jesus lived among them. They crown these images, and set them up along with the images of the philosophers of the world that is to say, with the images of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Aristotle, and the rest. They have also other modes of honouring these images, after the same manner of the Gentiles." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:25:6)

"These men [heretics], moreover, practise magic; and use images, incantations, invocations, and every other kind of curious art." (Irenæus, Against Heresies, 1:24:5)

"the law itself exhibits justice, and teaches wisdom, by abstinence from sensible images" - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 2:18)
"familiarity with the sight disparages the reverence of what is divine; and to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 5:5)
"Works of art cannot then be sacred and divine." - Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata, 7:5)

We cite these as evidence against the RC contention that the church has been RCC throughout history. RCs most typically respond with "he was just speaking as a private theologian". Do you consider that a valid response? If so, why, since the question is what the Church has believed throughout history, and isn't that response simple special pleading? If not, can you explain the disunity and fragmentation that this disagreement displays in the ranks of RCC?


My Reponse:
First off, you cited the argument you use - you did not cite a specific example of a Catholic using the argumentation you allege we use. That being said...

For St. Jerome, he was acting in his own personal judgment/interpretation. I would say this is a valid example of just that! Pictoral reminders of Jesus and/or the Saints are not idols for worship. St. Jerome's judgment was, by today's standards, an overreaction to the situation. Now, perhaps if we put things in perspective, when the Catholic Church was just emerging from the persecution of Pagan Rome - such images may have been confusing to the converts to Christianity. However, his reasoning - which was his own private judgment, went a bit too far.

For the first quote from St. Irenaeus - I am not sure what your getting at here. We have images which honor the Saint or Jesus Himself. We do not worship images as idols as did the Gentiles of his day.

For the second quote from St. Irenaeus - we do not practice magic or use incantations in some sort of Wiccan sense. I do not know what he means by "curious art." The point is, our "art" is not worshiped as gods/idols. We have no other gods before Him.

For the quotes from St. Clement - no image is divine in Catholic practice.

You rip quotes from their place in time and then you seem to be attacking 21st century Catholics because YOU feel in YOUR perception that there's the same sort of thing going on and you wish to condemn it. I'm not buying your anachronistic argumentation. Keep in mind, in the days of these Church Fathers - idol worship of actual idols was still a very big thing in the surrounding countries. Even in Rome itself, I sincerely doubt all idol worship sudden stopped when Constantine converted.

Alan continues:
Now, on the other topic, your response to my contention with respect to Eph 2, [1] since Paul goes on to mention circumcision, that means that v 10 - "For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them" is a command to perform the works of the Law, correct? [2] Why does not the RCC do so, then? [3] When was the last time you offered a grain offering? [4] Were your sons (if you have any) circumcised on the 8th day? [5] How have you solved the problem that has long vexed the Jewish people, that you don't have a Temple in which to perform the sacrifices? [6] Why isn't Yom Kippur a big, big deal on the RC calendar? [7] Why is it OK (a propos) to bow down to graven images now even though Joshua wouldn't've permitted Jews to bow down to images of the dead (but no doubt sainted) Moses?
[8] And could you please answer another of the original challenges? - our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone, in light of your statement No Catholic argues that works of the Law justify. It sounds like you are saying precisely that. Clarification would be appreciated.

My Responses:
Wow, 8 different questions! You are apparently a bit flustered by my direct response to your Ephesians 2 article and feel the need to distract and throw several topics into the fray all at once. So as to not be accused of avoiding your questions I will answer them this time - but if you continue this (tool of Satan) tactic, then my time for you will have run out. Stick to the topic, focus on one point at a time. You will not continue to get away with such tactics with me.

[1] No. It is a command to perform "good works" and the context is specifically opposing "works of the Law."
[2] Answered above.
[3] Answered above.
[4] My sons have been circumcised, but not according to the Jewish custom.
[5] The Old Covenant has been fulfilled, we are under the New Covenant. Our Sacrifice is offered as Jesus Christ Himself commanded us to "Do this..."
[6] Answered above.
[7] You seem to overlook that Moses himself, at the command of God Himself, had a "graven image" made of a serpent, and all who looked upon that image were healed. Obviously God is not opposed to ALL graven images - just those which people would be using as gods, for He is a jealous God and we are to have no other gods before Him.
Numbers 21: 9And Moses made a bronze serpent and set it on the standard; and it came about, that if a serpent bit any man, when he looked to the bronze serpent, he lived.
[8] You are mixing "good works" with "works of the Law" again. St. James tells us we are justified by works and NOT by sola fide (faith alone). These works which St. James refers to are NOT works of the Law, but as we would say today - "they are good works done in the state of grace." Without such works, faith is dead; it may exist but without works it is a dead faith and a dead faith cannot save you.
James 2:14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food,

16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and be filled," and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

17Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Scripture speaks quite clearly here - I could not make it clearer myself. I hope that suffices for the clarification you request.

My request, if you wish to continue discussion with me, is that you stick to a given topic. You closed that posting with 8 questions on 5 topics. I call that "shotgunning" (like the pellets in a shotgun shell), shooting out several topics at once to a) see what sticks and/or b) to distract from the original topic.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

23 comments:

  1. Hello,

    Sorry, I did not mean to mix up priest with bishop. My apologies.

    There is one point to most of my post, addressed from various angles, and then the 2nd part is devoted to answering you on Eph 2. I'm a bit distressed to learn you think this is a "tool of Satan" approach (in this comment you're hardly a model of restraint and civility), especially since you were the one who mixed the two issues into one post on this very blog. You apparently have difficulty following lines of argumentation, as I've noticed in 3 different ways during even his brief interaction.
    1) You forgot or neglected to mention who was the one who mixed the topics to begin with.
    2) You have at least twice shown poor recognition of the fact that I was performing an internal critique of the RC position, as indicated by, for example, a boldfaced word in the first comment you replied to.
    3) You are unable to see how my "8 different questions" all converge on a single topic - the relation of Old Covenant to your exegesis of Eph 2.

    But if it makes you feel better to go all "you speak as Satan speaks!!!!11" on me, I suppose that's your prerogative.

    You said:
    First off, you cited the argument you use - you did not cite a specific example of a Catholic using the argumentation you allege we use.


    The examples are virtually innumerable.
    Example one: We can see that this sole rule of faith called "Scripture alone", is shaping up to be, "my personal interpretation alone".
    Example two: See the quotes from Steve Ray.
    So, so many comments from RCs in the Beggars All comboxes.
    An example from the very thread in which you were recently involved.
    It is virtually indistinguishable, at any rate, from the RC claim that the Scripture is not formally sufficient/perspicuous.


    You said:
    For St. Jerome, he was acting in his own personal judgment/interpretation.

    OK, now how do you know that is true? (I'd say this is at the very heart of the real issue I was targeting when we originally talked.)


    You said:
    For the first quote from St. Irenaeus - I am not sure what your getting at here.

    You use images in worship.
    But look, I'm not going to get enmeshed in this icon/idol debate here. That's been done before. Isn't it interesting, though, how all of a sudden you're shotgunning? Hmm...


    You said:
    You rip quotes from their place in time and then you seem to be attacking 21st century Catholics because YOU feel in YOUR perception that there's the same sort of thing going on and you wish to condemn it.

    Now you're claiming mind-reading powers. You know, since you brought up this whole "tool of Satan" thing, isn't sorcery and magic mind-reading/ESP a Satanic activity?

    Now, at the risk of inciting your wrath for moving to a topic that you yourself addressed in the same post as another topic once upon a time, I'd like to talk about your reaction to Eph 2.

    Notice how, again, "works" appears TWICE in the psg. You're proposing that "not as a result of works" = works of the OT Law, while "created in Christ Jesus for good works" is something totally different? Even though they appear one sentence of each other?
    On what basis do you conclude that Paul would find "works of the Law" to be a bad thing? Isn't he the guy who calls the Law "holy, righteous, and good"?
    Don't rush off to your misinterpretation of James, please - stick with Eph 2, lest you shotgun off into the tools of Satan again. Focus - on what basis do you switch the two instances of "works" to different meanings, one quite good and one quite unsavory, in Eph 2?

    Thanks!

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  2. BTW, wrt your writing your bishop, why haven't you done this before, if you're really serious about being submitted to the Magisterium?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Regarding writing my bishop, I have written to the bishop which preceded this one. I am submissive to the Magisterium, I challenge you or anyone else to demonstrate where I have stated anything contrary to defined Catholic teaching. So Alan, who is your bishop?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr Windsor,

    Asking me who my bishop is demonstrates a significant misunderstanding of the implications of your non-actions, your longstanding negligence to make sure you are submitted to the Magisterium and not to your own private fallible judgment. You have an infallible authority, you say - so be submitted to it, or don't. But if you say you are, then I'd expect to see some evidence thereof. You're asking ME to verify whether you're in accord with Magisterial teaching? A Calvinist Baptist? A one-man Pope? Are you joking? Whether *I* can find some deviation from Magisterial teaching in your work is one thing; whether your so-called infallible interpreter vets your work and makes sure it's kosher is quite another.
    Or perhaps you'd like us just to take your word for it. Anyone can say that. I'd just like to hear it from someone who matters, since you're commending this infallible authority to us all. Is that too much to ask?

    Also, it's strange, now that I think about it a bit more, that you're writing to your bishop. Why not just to your priest? Is your priest somehow incompetent to make sure you're in submission to the infallible authority of the Magisterium? If not, on what basis do you trust any of his homilies or counseling?

    And since you asked, I am in submission to the elders of my church.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  5. I must have struck a nerve! I only asked who your bishop was - since Jesus Christ established that office in His Church. Yes, the question was a bit rhetorical, I realize you do not have "bishops" in your "church."

    Thank you for answering the question, I'll skip the comments on the fact I'm writing my bishop. So, your answer is that you are submissive to the elders of your church - to whom do they submit to?

    My bishop is in direct and valid succession from the bishops Jesus Christ selected. I have confidence in this fact.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello,

    My elders are in submission to the Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself thru the Word of God.

    Why, though, skip the question? Yes, you're writing your bishop NOW, under "duress" as it were, but you've been doing this how many years?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  7. > My elders are in submission to the
    > Holy Spirit Who expresses Himself
    > thru the Word of God.

    I see, so your elders are their own little magisterium.

    > Why, though, skip the question?

    I am not skipping any questions. I told you I am writing him. A fuller response will come later.

    > Yes, you're writing your bishop
    > NOW, under "duress" as it were,

    Oh come now! "Duress?" You give yourself too much credit. I felt it was a good idea to write him. I have ALWAYS been faithful to him. It's too early to respond back with any details, but the Assistant Chancellor has been in contact with me, I'll say that much for now. More later.

    > but you've been doing this how
    > many years?

    As I said before, I have been in contact with my previous bishop. It's not like I've never written his office before. I have also written directly to Rome in the past too and received responses. Let's just wait and see what I hear from my local ordinary and/or his chancellor.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fair enough.
    Two things though:
    1) My elders don't think they're infallible. They don't think they're descended directly via "apostolic succession" from Peter. They're not headed by a Pope who can speak ex cathedra whenever he feels like declaring something he said in the past at some point to have been an infallible statement, in retrospect. They are subject to Scripture and teach what it says. There are quite a few large differences. You should really know better, given how long you've been at this.
    2) The fact that you're writing him now b/c "you thought it was a good idea" is all well and good, but why not operate ALL THE TIME under Magisterial oversight? And again, why bother going all the way to the bishop? Why not your priest?

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  9. I had responded but blogger just hiccuped and lost everything I wrote! I'll try again later...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Alan, aka "Rhology" writes:
    > Fair enough.
    > Two things though:
    > 1) My elders don't think they're
    > infallible.

    sw: That's sad, because in the Church which Jesus built, his bishops were indeed given the authority to bind or loose whatsoever they chose, and if it were bound on Earth, then it was also bound in Heaven. Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority. Furthermore, this is part of what Jesus was sent to do (or else why do it?) and Jesus said "As the Father sent Me, I also send you." If the Apostles then did not pass on this authority which Jesus passed on to them - then they would have failed the Master right from the beginning. So the first bishops were given this infallible authority and by Jesus' Word, they too - being sent as He was sent - had to pass on this authority, which they did. So, if your elders were True Leaders of His Church, then they would have to have infallible authority, without it - they are just impostors, wolves dressed in sheeps clothing - to fool even the elect.

    Alan continues:
    > They don't think they're
    > descended directly via
    > "apostolic succession" from
    > Peter.

    sw: Not every bishop is a descendant from St. Peter. For example, much of Orthodoxy traces its roots down to St. Andrew the Apostle. That being said, one of the "Four Marks" of the True Church is precisely this "apostolic succession" in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." If there is no "apostolic succession" then you lose that "mark" in the "Four Marks."

    Alan continues:
    > They're not headed by a Pope who
    > can speak ex cathedra whenever
    > he feels like declaring
    > something he said in the past at
    > some point to have been an
    > infallible statement, in
    > retrospect.

    sw: If you think that is how "ex cathedra" works - then you have a lot to learn about Catholicism and you're attacking that which you know little about. I would be more than happy to have a discussion with you about papal infallibility.

    Alan continues:
    > They are subject to Scripture
    > and teach what it says.

    sw: So are and do Catholic bishops. That's a point you'll probably disagree with, but your disagreement would be on interpretation - not upon Scripture itself.

    Alan continues:
    > There are quite a few large
    > differences.

    sw: Absolutely there are quite a few large differences! Why do you think I asked you about your bishop?!

    Alan continues:
    > You should really know better,
    > given how long you've been at
    > this.

    sw: Oh, I see, time for the personal attacks now. Well Alan, I do "know better" and I asked that question on purpose! I had a bit of a clue that you didn't have a bishop, especially not one in valid apostolic succession to the Apostles. Again, that is why I asked the question in the first place! I didn't want to just assume, or pretend to be a "mind-reader" - I wanted you to tell me. And you know, if you really thought about "how long I've been at this" you probably could have guessed WHY I asked that question in the first place! It's not like I didn't telegraph to you where I was going with it when I told you how confident I was in my own bishop's valid apostolic succession.

    This has gotten too long for the "comments" so I will break here and continue in the next comment, (and this is another reason I recommended the webboard).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Continued...

    On to Alan's next point:
    > 2) The fact that you're writing
    > him now b/c "you thought it was
    > a good idea" is all well and
    > good, but why not operate ALL
    > THE TIME under Magisterial
    > oversight?

    sw: I am under Magisterial oversight all the time. I have written to the bishop's office before - in fact I've written to other bishops and even to the Bishop of Rome! But that's beside this point (we'll get to that again in a moment). The Magisterial teachings of the Church are public knowledge. If I stray from Catholic Truth not only would my opponents be quite quick to point it out - my fellow Catholics would be even quicker! If you have an example of ME going against the Magisterium, please bring it forth - or I suggest you drop this libelous approach.

    Alan continues:
    > And again, why bother going all
    > the way to the bishop? Why not
    > your priest?

    sw: You speak as if the bishop is some high and lofty unreachable person. The fact of the matter is the priest has his ministry and I have mine - we are BOTH under our local ordinary. Another fact is that priests do not have the authority to grant an imprimatur or nihil obstat - and that is one of the things I am asking about. As I mentioned before, I have written more than one bishop in the past, including the Bishop of Rome - and I have always gotten a response. So your "all the way to the bishop" comment seems a bit "misplaced." Perhaps you are learning a bit about Catholicism though, and for that I will thank the Lord and pray that you one day will be joining me in full communion with the Catholic Church.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hello Mr Windsor,
    Thanks again for the time and dialogue! And I HATE it when Blogger eats my writing; you have my empathy as a fellow sufferer. Anymore, I write on Notepad and then copy+paste so it doesn't get eaten.


    Since nothing fallible can logically be bound in Heaven, then this authority had to be infallible authority.

    1) This is poor exegesis, but whatever - I don't want to discuss this here. We're already tangent-ing pretty badly.
    2) So you admit that your original assertion was wrong - that my elders are their own little Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The decent thing to do would be to withdraw that statement, sir.


    That being said, one of the "Four Marks" of the True Church is precisely this "apostolic succession" in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." I

    So, again you admit my elders are not really all that comparable to the Magisterium. Withdraw?


    If you think that is how "ex cathedra" works - then you have a lot to learn about Catholicism and you're attacking that which you know little about.

    Obviously I took a bit of polemical liberty with the "feels like", but I don't see how the fundamental point is inaccurate.


    So are and do Catholic bishops.

    Since Scr teaches that all tradition is to be subjected to it, among other things, this is inaccurate.


    Oh, I see, time for the personal attacks now

    You call that a personal attack? After accusing me of engaging in a "tool of Satan" for bringing up two topics in one comment? Please, sir.



    I am under Magisterial oversight all the time

    How so? How can that be verified? Just by saying, like Darwinists are fond of saying, "If I were wrong, it would be common knowledge and on every front page!"?
    Yes, SOME Magisterial teachings are public knowledge, but they don't exactly provide much hands-on applied knowledge. Else, why have lay apologists like you and CA? Other RCs like to claim that the Magisterium assures an infallible Canon of Scr, but the Magisterium has never provided one (so that would be why I say "some"); nor does the Mag provide an infallible list of its own infall teachings, thus failing to give its own Canon.
    So...this really seems to come down to "I'm in subjection to the Mag. Trust me."


    If you have an example of ME going against the Magisterium, please bring it forth

    I hardly see why this is about me. I'm just one man, remember? I'm trying to get you either to live consistently with what you say you believe about the Mag and its authority and oversight and infallibility, or to admit the unlivability (and really, absurdity) or that viewpoint.


    You speak as if the bishop is some high and lofty unreachable person. The fact of the matter is the priest has his ministry and I have mine - we are BOTH under our local ordinary.

    He's higher and loftier than your priest.


    Another fact is that priests do not have the authority to grant an imprimatur or nihil obstat

    So, your priest is not necessarily competent to communicate to you what the Magisterium teaches?
    This raises some questions in my mind, which are all serious questions, not rhetorical:
    1) How do I know you're not getting it wrong?
    2) Why doesn't your bishop blog for you?
    3) Come to think of it, why doesn't the Magisterium take care of this kind of thing so as to make sure RC dogma doesn't go astray?


    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  13. Responding to Alan, aka "Rhology" hereafter "AR":

    > AR: Hello Mr Windsor,
    > Thanks again for the time and dialogue! And I
    > HATE it when Blogger eats my writing; you have
    > my empathy as a fellow sufferer. Anymore, I
    > write on Notepad and then copy+paste so it
    > doesn't get eaten.

    sw: I do that often too - but didn't that time.

    >> sw: Since nothing fallible can logically be
    >> bound in Heaven, then this authority had to
    >> be infallible authority.
    >
    > AR: 1) This is poor exegesis, but whatever -
    > I don't want to discuss this here. We're
    > already tangent-ing pretty badly.

    sw: You brought up the non-infallibility of your
    elders, I responded that it was a pity, since
    Jesus established the True Church with "overseers"
    (bishops) who indeed had this authority. Now you
    run from the topic you started.

    > AR: 2) So you admit that your original assertion
    > was wrong - that my elders are their own little
    > Magisterium. Good, we're getting somewhere. The
    > decent thing to do would be to withdraw that
    > statement, sir.

    sw: a) You claim I made the admission (which I did not)
    and then b) you ask me to withdraw the statement,
    which if I had indeed admitted to what you claim, then
    such and admission IS a withdrawal of the statement.

    sw: Now I repeat, I did not admit to any such thing!
    You are subject to your elders who are solely subject
    to Scripture - was that not your argument? If so,
    then they truly are your little Magisterium who can
    tell you what Scripture really means or doesn't mean,
    or are you saying they do not do that for you?

    >> sw: That being said, one of the "Four Marks" of
    >> the True Church is precisely this "apostolic
    >> succession" in "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic."
    >> I (you ended here)

    > AR: So, again you admit my elders are not really
    > all that comparable to the Magisterium. Withdraw?

    sw: Withdraw what? I was contrasting the REAL
    Magisterium with your wolves in sheeps clothing
    phoney magisterum.

    >> sw: If you think that is how "ex cathedra"
    >> works - then you have a lot to learn about
    >> Catholicism and you're attacking that which
    >> you know little about.
    >
    > AR: Obviously I took a bit of polemical liberty
    > with the "feels like", but I don't see how the
    > fundamental point is inaccurate.

    sw: Try to drop the polemical liberty stuff then
    and you'll find it reciprocated.

    >> sw: So are and do Catholic bishops.
    >
    > AR: Since Scr teaches that all tradition is
    > to be subjected to it, among other things,
    > this is inaccurate.

    sw: You cite nothing, you quote nothing - you make
    a wholly unsupported assertion, and I reject it as
    such. If you have no valid argument, I'll not
    even try to answer your empty claims.

    >> sw: Oh, I see, time for the personal attacks now
    >
    > AR: You call that a personal attack? After
    > accusing me of engaging in a "tool of Satan" for
    > bringing up two topics in one comment? Please, sir.

    sw: What you may be engaged in and WHO you are are
    two different things.

    >> sw: I am under Magisterial oversight all the time
    >
    > AR: How so?

    sw: You can find the defined teachings of the Church
    in many places. Do you really need me to enumerate
    this for you?

    > AR: How can that be verified?

    sw: Compare what I have said to defined Catholic
    teaching. If you can show me where I have strayed,
    I would humbly bring myself into compliance.

    > AR: Just by saying, like Darwinists are fond of
    > saying, "If I were wrong, it would be common
    > knowledge and on every front page!"?

    sw: That excuse may work for some, but I have not
    used it.

    (cutting here to fit into "comments" section)

    ReplyDelete
  14. (continuing from last comment...)

    > AR: Yes, SOME Magisterial teachings are public
    > knowledge, but they don't exactly provide much
    > hands-on applied knowledge. Else, why have lay
    > apologists like you and CA?

    sw: Catholic apologists are used to help explain
    what the Magisterium has taught to those who have
    not researched the subject matter and/or in terms
    perhaps to be better understood -AND- we exist to
    explain to our detractors - and/or those who are
    listening to our detractors, what the Church
    REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic
    propaganda.

    > AR: Other RCs like to claim that the Magisterium
    > assures an infallible Canon of Scr, but the
    > Magisterium has never provided one (so that
    > would be why I say "some");

    sw: I take it you've never read Trent's infallible
    decree on the Canon of Sacred Scripture then?

    > AR: nor does the Mag provide an infallible list
    > of its own infall teachings, thus failing to
    > give its own Canon.

    sw: As I have commented before, if you take Dr.
    Ludwig Ott's book and look to the "de fide"
    statements - you have a pretty good list right
    there. It seems the only ones looking for an
    "infallible canon of infallible teachings" are
    non-Catholics who attack the Faith.

    > AR: So...this really seems to come down to
    > "I'm in subjection to the Mag. Trust me."

    sw: Alan, I openly and humbly ask you or anyone
    out there to point out where I may have drifted
    from defined dogmatic instruction. You prefer to
    attack with vague and intangible arguments which
    I must respond with just as vague and intangible
    answers. Unless the questions are more to a
    specific point - the answers cannot be either.


    >> sw: If you have an example of ME going against
    >> the Magisterium, please bring it forth
    >
    > AR: I hardly see why this is about me. I'm just
    > one man, remember?

    sw: How was that question anything about you? You
    are the one attacking me and my Faith. I have
    merely asked you to point out any failings which
    you may perceive. Short of that, I have asked you
    to stop with the libelous line of argumentation.

    > AR: I'm trying to get you either to live
    > consistently with what you say you believe about
    > the Mag and its authority and oversight and
    > infallibility, or to admit the unlivability
    > (and really, absurdity) or that viewpoint.

    sw: I appreciate your concern, but I suspect you
    are not really hoping I am consistent with the
    Magisterium, rather you are motivated by an agenda
    to find fault where ever you can. You are not
    seeking truth and building up, you are seeking
    to destroy and knock down.

    (cutting here to fit into "comments" section)

    ReplyDelete
  15. (continuing from last comment...)

    >> sw: You speak as if the bishop is some high and
    >> lofty unreachable person. The fact of the matter
    >> is the priest has his ministry and I have mine -
    >> we are BOTH under our local ordinary.
    >
    > AR: He's higher and loftier than your priest.

    sw: He's higher, but I would not say loftier. The
    bishop as "overseer" has a responsibility over both
    me and my priest in our differing vocations.

    >> sw: Another fact is that priests do not have
    >> the authority to grant an imprimatur or nihil
    >> obstat
    >
    > AR: So, your priest is not necessarily competent
    > to communicate to you what the Magisterium teaches?

    sw: You're moving the target again. You asked me why
    I contacted my bishop and not my priest. I answered.
    It has nothing to do with my priest's ability to
    communicate - but if I am seeking official approval
    for an article, my priest has not the authority for
    such. So, why not acknowledge that I answered your
    question without imputing something I didn't say and
    before moving on to other questions? If you have
    any integrity, you'll start doing that.

    > AR: This raises some questions in my mind, which
    > are all serious questions, not rhetorical:
    > 1) How do I know you're not getting it wrong?

    sw: It is my job as an apologist to defend that which
    has already been taught - not teach something different.
    Again, if you find a statement from me which teaches
    something contrary to defined Catholic teaching, I
    would appreciate you bringing it to my attention.
    This whole discussion seems based in an implication
    that I have or am getting it wrong somewhere, but
    you do not provide a single piece of evidence to
    show anything even remotely "wrong" in my representation
    of Catholic teaching. In fact, you're making this more
    about ME than any Catholic teaching! Why the focus on
    personal attacks?

    > AR: 2) Why doesn't your bishop blog for you?

    sw: For me? Why would he do that? Why (again) are you
    constantly trying to make this about me personally?

    > AR: 3) Come to think of it, why doesn't the
    > Magisterium take care of this kind of thing so as
    > to make sure RC dogma doesn't go astray?

    sw: Dogma cannot go astray. People may, and that is
    why we have "overseers" (bishops) to bring people
    back on track who may have strayed.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hello Mr Windsor,

    You come across as fairly stubborn and persistent even in foolish errors such as failing to recognise EXAMPLES and calling them "shotgunning", then proceeding on to perform your own shotgunning action, in blissful "I'm rubber, you're glue" fashion. Knock yourself out with all the "tool of Satan" lampooning that you like.


    I responded that it was a pity, since Jesus established the True Church with "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this authority

    Like the elders of the churches in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Colossæ, Thessalonica, Crete, Laodicæa, Sardis, etc? Got it.
    ("Elder" and "bishop" are interchangeable in the NT, if you'll recall.)


    Now I repeat, I did not admit to any such thing!

    So much the worse for your argument then. You call my elders "a little Magisterium" and then I point out obvious dissimilarities between them, and you haven't rebutted them.


    your little Magisterium who can tell you what Scripture really means or doesn't mean, or are you saying they do not do that for you?

    I mean what I said above. If it would help, I'd suggest you re-read my statement. Respond to what I actually said, if you'd be so kind.



    AR: Since Scr teaches that all tradition is to be subjected to it, among other things, this is inaccurate.
    sw: You cite nothing


    Mark 7:1-13.


    You can find the defined teachings of the Church in many places. Do you really need me to enumerate this for you?

    One can find SOME of the defined teachings of the RCC in many places. Others are said to be defined but are not. Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not, such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc.
    But for the 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the other decry this individual interpretation if it differs from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's right here?
    IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's really weird.


    That excuse may work for some, but I have not used it.

    It's functionally equivalent to what you're telling me here.
    How about you actually exercise some of this humility you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?


    Catholic apologists are used to help explain what the Magisterium ...REALLY teaches as opposed to anti-Catholic propaganda.

    And why precisely can't the Magisterium take care of that? The Pope? Is he too busy making official visits to Hugo Chávez and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?


    I take it you've never read Trent's infallible decree on the Canon of Sacred Scripture then?

    I take it you're unfamiliar with Trent's passing over at least one DeuteroCanonical book in silence then?

    (cont)

    ReplyDelete
  17. (cont)


    As I have commented before, if you take Dr. Ludwig Ott's book and look to the "de fide" statements - you have a pretty good list right there.

    Is it infallible?
    If not, why would you bring it up, since I specifically requested an infallible document?
    I once asked Fr Mitch Pacwa this question face to face and he told me to look at Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. It's not infallible either. Want to try again?


    It seems the only ones looking for an "infallible canon of infallible teachings" are non-Catholics who attack the Faith.

    So you're saying you don't have one, then?
    How do you really, infallibly, know what the RCC teaches? And what she teaches infallibly?


    I suspect you are not really hoping I am consistent with the Magisterium

    Well, you've got me there, but your insistence on stalling me and dancing around the question speaks volumes. What's wrong with just doing what you tell others to do, yourself? Are you hoping to attract others to the RCC by the sheer force of your inconsistent behavior?


    You are not seeking truth and building up

    An attempt at mind-reading now. It's a poor substitute for argumentation.


    It has nothing to do with my priest's ability to communicate - but if I am seeking official approval for an article, my priest has not the authority for such.

    Brilliant, and I'd like to know why. I don't see what's so hard about the question.


    Dogma cannot go astray. People may, and that is why we have "overseers" (bishops) to bring people back on track who may have strayed.

    And how could we know that unless the bishop knew what you were writing? On a consistent basis, not just whenever the urge strikes you, not just when a Reformed apologists asks you if you're in submission to RCC. It makes the observer question how much you really value what you say you value.

    Peace,
    Rhology

    ReplyDelete
  18. More later, but for now:

    Alan said:
    > Knock yourself out with all the
    > "tool of Satan" lampooning that
    > you like.

    Thanks for the permission, as if I needed it, but it's nice to have your blessing. So, you keep using such tools and I'll keep pointing them out until you realize whom you're really serving when you utilize such.

    Again, more later... in the middle of a huge garage project.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete
  19. Alan, aka Rhology, wrote:
    > Hello Mr Windsor,
    > You come across as fairly stubborn and persistent
    > even in foolish errors such as failing to recognise
    > EXAMPLES and calling them "shotgunning", then
    > proceeding on to perform your own shotgunning
    > action, in blissful "I'm rubber, you're glue" fashion.

    sw: Thanks Alan! That's about the nicest you've been to me in our short acquaintance.

    > Knock yourself out with all the "tool of Satan" lampooning that you like.

    sw: As I said earlier, the more you use such tactics, the more I will expose them to the objective readers. Examples are one thing, IF THEY ARE ON TOPIC! Off-topic examples are nothings short of diversionary/confusion tactics and when you use them I WILL point them out and call them what they are - tools of Satan.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: I responded that it was a pity, since
    >> Jesus established the True Church with
    >> "overseers" (bishops) who indeed had this
    >> authority
    >
    > Like the elders of the churches in Rome, Corinth,
    > Galatia, Ephesus, Colossæ, Thessalonica, Crete,
    > Laodicæa, Sardis, etc? Got it.
    > ("Elder" and "bishop" are interchangeable in the NT,
    > if you'll recall.)

    sw: I don't recall US having such a discussion, but yes,
    in places bishops can be seen as "elders" because they
    tended to be the "elder" members of the church. That
    being said, yes, like the bishops of Rome, Corinth, Galatia,
    etc. I'm glad to see you "got it," well, you claim you
    "got it," but pardon me if I still have my doubts.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw:Now I repeat, I did not admit to any such thing!
    >
    > So much the worse for your argument then. You call
    > my elders "a little Magisterium" and then I point out
    > obvious dissimilarities between them, and you haven't
    > rebutted them.

    sw: You said they do not claim the charism of infallibility,
    why would I rebut that? I said it was sad they do not
    claim it - for TRUE bishops DO!

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: your little Magisterium who can tell you what
    >> Scripture really means or doesn't mean, or are
    >> you saying they do not do that for you?
    >
    > I mean what I said above. If it would help, I'd suggest
    > you re-read my statement. Respond to what I actually
    > said, if you'd be so kind.

    sw: I asked you a question, how about answering it?
    And to WHICH statement above are you referring?
    Please don't make me guess - you have MANY statements
    above. Quote yourself to avoid confusion.

    Alan continues:
    >>> AR: Since Scr teaches that all tradition is to be
    >>> subjected to it, among other things, this is
    >>> inaccurate.
    >>
    >>sw: You cite nothing
    >
    > Mark 7:1-13.

    sw: So what's Corban got to do with anything here? Bringing up the "Corban rule" seems to be a favorite among followers of White - yet rarely applies. In this instance we're talking about bishops and apostolic authority as IS recorded in Scripture - and you're citing a passage on the "Corban rule" which has to do with the Pharisees putting their traditions above a direct command from God in Scripture. Apostolic authority IS directly from God in Scripture! If anything, the "Corban rule" should be applied to Protestants like you who REJECT the decree from God that His bishops indeed have this authority!

    (breaking here)

    ReplyDelete
  20. (continued from last comment)

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: You can find the defined teachings of the
    >> Church in many places. Do you really need me
    >> to enumerate this for you?
    >
    > One can find SOME of the defined teachings of
    > the RCC in many places. Others are said to be
    > defined but are not.

    sw: I am aware of no official Catholic teaching which claims to be defined, yet is not. If you're going to make such allegations, I'm going to have to demand documentation accompany them or short of that I reject them as unsubstantiated allegations. I will not subject myself to every little rabbit-hole-diversion you throw at me, Alan. You already know what I think about such diversions.

    Alan continues:
    > Some, it would be nice if they were, but they're not,
    > such as an infallible list of infall teachings, a list of
    > the infallibly-interpreted Scr psgs, etc. But for the
    > 3rd time, you say on the one hand that it's the
    > reader's responsibility to figure it out, and on the
    > other decry this individual interpretation if it differs
    > from the RCC's teachings. How can we know who's
    > right here?

    sw: I told you about Dr. Ott's book and ANYTHING which he has labeled "de fide" can be confidently accepted as a defined dogma. What is clear here, you're attacking a non-list. You're not going after something with substance, you're attacking something which DOESN'T EXIST. Could we have such a list? Sure, but the fact that we don't and you attack it is nonsensical. Now, IF we had such a list and you were attacking something ON the list which you felt didn't belong there, THEN we'd have a valid debate - but to try and debate the non-existence of something is quite foolish. Now, if you have a specific gripe about something labeled "de fide" in Dr. Ott's book, we can continue this - otherwise, quit attempting to divert and confuse this discussion with intangibles.

    Alan comments:
    > IOW, you're asking me to act like a Protestant. It's
    > really weird.

    sw: No, you're just acting like a Protestant who seems to need everything to be inscripturated before you will believe it. (Dogmatic decrees would be equal to scriptural decrees for the Catholic since being bound in Heaven means it is infallible, just like Scripture is).

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: That excuse may work for some, but I have not used it.
    >
    > It's functionally equivalent to what you're telling me here.

    sw: I had to go back and look at what that comment was relevant to, here's what I was responding to:
    >>> AR: Just by saying, like Darwinists are fond of
    >>> saying, "If I were wrong, it would be common
    >>> knowledge and on every front page!"?

    sw: My point is - if you have an ACTUAL EXAMPLE of me presenting something contrary to what you perceive to be magisterial teaching - then put up or shut up. It is foolish for me to try and answer to your hypothetical nonsense. Present something with substance or go back to your little corner and leave apologetics to those who will deal with substance.

    Alan continues:
    > How about you actually exercise some of this humility
    > you claim and submit ALL your work to the Magisterium
    > for the imprimatur? What's so wrong with that request?

    sw: Come now Alan! I've ALREADY DONE THIS! I have opened the dialog with my bishop's office and am in direct communication with his Chancellor's Office. Such things do not happen overnight. Now, "sauce for the goose" time - do you present EVERY WORD you write here before your elders for approval/imprimatur? Or, are you demanding something of me which you don't submit yourself to?

    (breaking here)

    ReplyDelete
  21. (continued from last comment)

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: Catholic apologists are
    >> used to help explain what
    >> the Magisterium ...REALLY
    >> teaches as opposed to
    >> anti-Catholic propaganda.
    >
    > And why precisely can't the
    > Magisterium take care of that?
    > The Pope? Is he too busy making
    > official visits to Hugo Chávez
    > and kissing Qur'ans to pitch in?

    sw: Uh, oh, cheap shot time! Alan, popes do not answer every little jot and tiddle which every anti-Catholic propaganda machine puts out. Scripture tells us that we're ALL called to give a defense to everyone who asks you...
    but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. (1 Peter 3:15-17 NASB) (emphasis mine).
    So this is a personal command and a scriptural command that we ALL are called to participate in. Why would you question my willingness to abide by Scripture here? Will you be backing off and even apologizing for challenging me so?

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: I take it you've never read
    >> Trent's infallible decree on
    >> the Canon of Sacred Scripture
    >> then?
    >
    > I take it you're unfamiliar with
    > Trent's passing over at least
    > one DeuteroCanonical book in
    > silence then?

    sw: Again, an allegation without substance. Which book do you say was "passed over?" The decree is regarding the books from "the old Latin Vulgate Edition." Here's the decree I spoke of:

    If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.Source.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: As I have commented before,
    >> if you take Dr. Ludwig Ott's
    >> book and look to the "de fide"
    >> statements - you have a pretty
    >> good list right there.
    >
    > Is it infallible?

    sw: Everything listed as "de fide" is.

    Alan continues:
    > If not, why would you bring it
    > up, since I specifically
    > requested an infallible
    > document?

    sw: Because you know no such "infallible list" exists, so you seem think you have us trumped on whether or not we know dogma or not. It's an amateur ploy made by simple minded folk who wish to fool other simple minded folk. Well, it's foolish to continue down this road when you have been given a source of infallible statements already.

    (breaking here)

    ReplyDelete
  22. (continued from last comment)

    Alan continues:
    > I once asked Fr Mitch Pacwa this
    > question face to face and he
    > told me to look at Denzinger's
    > Enchiridion Symbolorum. It's not
    > infallible either. Want to try
    > again?

    sw: So you've been given at least TWO good sources! Denzinger's is another good source! There's no sense in "trying again" with you here. You've been given at least two very good sources. Dogma IS knowable by those who honestly seek such knowledge.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: It seems the only ones
    >> looking for an "infallible canon
    >> of infallible teachings" are
    >> non-Catholics who attack the
    >> Faith.
    >
    > So you're saying you don't have
    > one, then?

    sw: I have never claimed we have one. We DO have lists of dogma, at least two of which have been presented before you - have you ever looked at either of them?

    Alan continues:
    > How do you really, infallibly,
    > know what the RCC teaches? And
    > what she teaches infallibly?

    sw: And as I expected to find sooner or later, the silly question at the end of virtually all who ask those initial questions. We have lists, do we have one infallible list? No, if the REAL NEED ever arises, perhaps one will be generated, but I don't see this as ever becoming a real need since, as I said and as has Fr. Pacwa said, we have lists. Start there - you'll find definitely defined Catholic dogmas. What a Catholic cannot do is knowingly and willingly deny something which is defined as dogma, to do so would incur excommunication.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: I suspect you are not
    >> really hoping I am consistent
    >> with the Magisterium
    >
    > Well, you've got me there,

    sw: Ah! An honest response! Thank you! I appreciate that!

    Alan continues:
    > but your insistence on stalling
    > me and dancing around the
    > question speaks volumes. What's
    > wrong with just doing what you
    > tell others to do, yourself? Are
    > you hoping to attract others to
    > the RCC by the sheer force
    > of your inconsistent behavior?

    sw: You have not demonstrated I have been inconsistent, but again, I point out how you're trying to make this a personal thing and not an apologetic discussion of my faith vs. your faith. You want to point out character flaws in ME, not my argumentation. If you're going to continue with this line of apologetics of personal destruction - then move along, we're done. I do not claim to be perfect. I might even make mistakes here and there. We're not here to put Scott Windsor before a tribunal, we're here to discuss the Catholic Faith. I am here to defend the Faith as best I can. If I fail, let me be corrected - but my personal failing(s) does not equate to the Catholic Faith failing. As I said, if you are unable or unwilling to see the difference here, then it's time for you to move along - and when you're ready to discuss matters of FAITH and not matters of PERSON - come back to the table.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: You are not seeking truth
    >> and building up
    >
    > An attempt at mind-reading now.
    > It's a poor substitute for
    > argumentation.

    sw: I apologize for putting your argumentation upon you personally. Let me rephrase, your argumentation is not for the seeking of truth and building up the Faith, rather it is for tearing down and attacking individual persons.

    (breaking here)

    ReplyDelete
  23. (continued from last and concluding here)

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: It has nothing to do with
    >> my priest's ability to
    >> communicate - but if I am
    >> seeking official
    >> approval for an article, my
    >> priest has not the authority
    >> for such.
    >
    > Brilliant, and I'd like to know
    > why.

    sw: That's the way it is. Priests are, and always have been, subject to their bishops.

    Alan continues:
    > I don't see what's so hard about
    > the question.

    sw: You didn't asked why I went to my bishop, I told you. Your argument seems to be that I didn't answer you, when I did. The apostolic office of the bishop HAS the authority to declare approval or refuse to give his approval. Certainly my priest could give HIS approval, but that would not be coming from one with apostolic authority to make such a judgment. Your question merely conveys an ignorance of Catholicism.

    Alan continues:
    >> sw: Dogma cannot go astray.
    >> People may, and that is why we
    >> have "overseers" (bishops) to
    >> bring people back on track who
    >> may have strayed.
    >
    > And how could we know that
    > unless the bishop knew what you
    > were writing? On a consistent
    > basis, not just whenever the
    > urge strikes you, not just when a
    > Reformed apologists asks you if
    > you're in submission to RCC. It
    > makes the observer question how
    > much you really value what you
    > say you value.

    sw: Again, your argument is focused on ME and not the substance of this debate. Whether or not every word I have said is officially blessed by my bishop has no relevance upon whether or not what I have said is true and in conformity with defined dogma of the Catholic Church. You seem to think you have a victory here - when your whole argument seems to be based in attacking my person instead of challenging anything I have actually stated. Challenge a statement, let me defend the statement - if we find a given statement is out of compliance with defined Catholic teaching, I must humbly submit to the definition - or cease calling myself a Catholic. But again, let's stop the personal attacks and discuss matters of the Catholic Faith. Again, it is MY intention to accurately represent the Catholic Faith in my apologetic, if I EVER fail, then I am sure between you, other non-Catholics and my Catholic brethren - such a failing will be brought to light - and THEN if I fail to comply - take it to my bishop. Let him put me in my place if you fail to do so.

    In JMJ,
    Scott<<<

    ReplyDelete

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.