[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I can see again that the administrators on this site have for the 2nd time changed my screen name from ApostolicChristian to ApostolicFalseChristian and now to ApoplecticFalseChristian.

This bullying and open contempt for me and other Catholics and non-Baptists is childish, uncharitable and un-Christian. I can no longer even keep up with my currently forced screen name to permit me to log on here anymore. So, I will no longer be participating in these forums if my original screen name is not respected and restored.


ApostolicChristian

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I will no longer be participating in these forums if my original screen name is not respected and restored.

How typical. You can't win on the merits of your arguments, so you chose instead to pout like a child.

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

How typical. You can't win on the merits of your arguments, so you chose instead to pout like a child.

Whoever changed his name is the child here, not ApostilicChristian. If you aren't willing to respect him enough to treat him with basic human decency by according him the same privilege to chose a name that you have, why should he stick around?

I think you "True Christians" keep changing his name because you want him to leave, since he actually knows scripture and can point out flaws in your party line.

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I am finding myself severely preoccupied in tending to a fine Christian young lady's insistence that I take the time to consumate our very recent marriage engagement

I am remiss in not having congratulated you. Congrats!

She charmfully advises me too that it be sufficiently impressive to divert her parent's possible objections to the 18 year age difference that separates us.

There's nothing wrong with marrying an older woman, and don't let anyone tell you anything different.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

For some strange reason the forum posting system seems to have stopped forwarding me notifications that there have been new posts made subsequent to mine. I just happened to log in just now and see there have been a few since then that I have not had an opportunity to respond to.

Why should Jesus give you a leg up, papist?

I will respond to these when I get more time. But at this moment I am finding myself severely preoccupied in tending to a fine Christian young lady's insistence that I take the time to consumate our very recent marriage engagement with a diamond engagement ring proportionally expressive of her rarity and chastity. She charmfully advises me too that it be sufficiently impressive to divert her parent's possible objections to the 18 year age difference that separates us. But alas, quality diamonds in the large carat variety having the ideal hearts-and-arrows precision cuts necessary to achieve this quest are hard to find at most any price.

I'll reply more as time permits but I am compelled by "priorities of the heart" to attend to more important matters.

ApostolicChristian

Could you show us exactly where the Holy Bible tells us to "consumate a marriage engagement?" As far as I know, you're supposed to wait until you are actually married before attempting to make future soldiers for Christ. What you are doing is called rape. The fact that you bribed her with a cheap ring doesn't change the facts.

How much have you paid her father?

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I spent 4 years in seminary and 2 years getting my master's degree in Biblical Archeology, so I can assure you that I have both had many fine teachers and am well familiar with many interpretations of the Bible, including Catholic works.

The Bible verses you used to support your assertion that only Catholic interpretations are correct only support those assertions if you apply Catholic interpretations to them. This is a circular argument, and I'm not quite sure why you don't see that, because you're a rather logical fellow. I am not saying that the Catholic interpretations are wrong, or that you are wrong to follow them, but I am saying that Pastor Billy-Reuben was right when he pointed out that the plain meaning of the verses you quoted does not support your thesis that only Catholic interpretations are valid.

So you say. But I have something you do not have - proper apostolic teaching handed down for 2,000 years from the apostles. My sheepskin is the living Lamb of God which trumps your undemonstrated secular pedigree everytime.

It seems to me you are guilty of your very own circular reasoning; except you go about it in counter clockwise direction looking back on history. So stop kidding yourself. I am not quite sure why you can't see that either. You seem to subscribe to a "let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya" sort of religious pluralism that sounds more like babel than it does a single cornerstone that will scale in the universal sense like the little Rock of Peter built on the corner stone of Christ.

And let's let brother Billy speak for himself yes? He does not need a relational pimp or a sock puppet like broker playing the faux role of a neutral arbitor or to run interference. And by the way you sure have a funny way of agreeing when you assert that what Brother Billy sees as "plain meaning" I prove to be contradictory and not so plain when one looks at all the verses all in context. I suppose though from your out-of-school comments that no one in your seminary school ever taught you the Summa Theologica and St. Thomas Aquinas' 4 senses of scripture did they? If not I must ask, did you fail out of school or just lose the faith and drop out?

The Gospels were written around 20 to 30 years after the crucifixion. See, for example, Marcus J. Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally, (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002) p. 189. Nevertheless, I agree with you that the Apostles had no Bibles. By your theory of Apostilic (SP) Succession, however, if the Apostles needed no Bibles, then the Church needs no Bibles today. That is certainly not Catholic doctrine.

Surely you are not forgetting the apostle John are you? Hello, remember him? He was a young man and the only loyal apostle who stayed with Jesus to the very end at the cross with Mary and while tortured cruelly later in life was not known to be martyred. John died sometime in the 100AD time-frame and so his last works recorded in Revelations come many years later than you imply through a clever appeal to just "the gospel". You take the whole entire Word of God or you take none of it. Sorry, no pick-n-choose buffet theology here please - we are told that we must live by every word that comes from God. Jesus is the complete and total living Word of God and that includes all 73 books of the Bible.

And please, your pithy logic on the Catholic need for Bibles is just a silly projection. You should know that the very reason the Catholic Church formalized its canon in the first place was to prevent the many circulating spurious works from being confused with the inspired word and to put down early heresies. You should also know that The Catholic Church has also formalized the cannon to fully integrate scripture into its liturgy. Most non-Catholics do not know that the Catholic Church lives and breaths scripture. The Bible is so thoroughly integrated into our liturgy that is is taugh orally completely in 3 year cycles by simply attending a Catholic Mass each Sunday. The subtly you fail to pick on on here is the operative words are "taught" not read and interpreted in the vacuum of private interpretation.

2 thess 2:15 (KJV) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

That's not an argument, it is an ASSERTION in all capital letters. Getting louder because someone does not agree with you is not a great way to convince thoughtful readers.

It's assertion that happens to be the truth as I have backed up in scripture time and time again. See above.

I have read Hillel and Origen and Augustine and Chrysostom and Maimonides and many other learned and more recent commentators on the Bible. As a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that there is something useful to be learned from all points of view, including even Landover's (though I have to admit, it is very hard sometimes to find the good in the Landover Baptist Church). So, yes, I absolutely agree with you, we need the reference picture to piece the puzzle together. That doesn't mean that your reference picture is necessarily the right one or the wrong one.

But did you understand what you read? These men are all Catholics and part of our heritage and family. As we say "Origen an Augustine were friends of ours, we knew these Catholics, you are no Origen or Augustin".

I agree that there can always be a lesson to be learned - even a fool had a lesson to demonstrate - if not repeating the same thing over and over again ad-nauseum while expecting different outcomes. But how many times must a lesson be expressed before it sinks in? Is salvation dependent on IQ or just a lucky guess on which of the 33,000 or so non-Catholic denominations might have it right. Since you don't think the Catholic reference is wrong or right then why not go back to the original Church on the assumption it never lost what it always had - the truth? Flipping a coin on the new 20th century religion of Unitarian Universalism or any new Protestant revisionism seems pretty cavalier to me. We already have a secular buffet of Protestantism to give us all the choices anyone would care to eat - along with the attendant heartburn. Humanism based religions are just that - human inspired and lacking.

Mark 5:9 (KJV) And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

OK, here is an argument: Matthew 8:14-15 and Mark 1:30-31 show clearly that Peter had a wife. If your theory of Apostilic Succession is correct, then there is no reason that Popes should be celibate.

That's not an argument that's a naked strawman. Celibacy has nothing whatsoever to do with apostolic succession and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is not very becoming. I won't go any further with your baiting.

Jerome created two revisions of the Latin Bible, but he was not the original translator. Jerome's versions are hardly the definitive translation according to Catholic doctrine, since Pope Pius X had the Vulgate revised again in the 20th Century.

The Catholic Bibles are updated now and then to take advantage of the latest archaeological evidence and advances in academic scholarship and to correct the few publishing and minor translation errors (e.g. dead sea scrolls). KJV has a well established litany of errata. If in doubt Google "KJV errors" and count the score of pages.

The beauty of Catholicism is that we have the 2000 year old Sacred Tradition to help us discern what is meant by Sacred Scripture along with God's promise that the Holy Spirit would guide us to all truth and that the gates of hell would never prevail against us. We don't have to rely on fallable private interpretation like the pastors of 32, 000+ protestant denominations all do. We are One Trust Catholic and Apostolic Church. I suppose know you will tell us that Unitarian's that come into existence in the 1960's are the true church in which those promises apply? Go ahead - say it so we can get it out on the table and put that to bed too.

You are incorrect regarding the KJV view of the apocrypha, as a quick perusal of the translator's notes will show. The KVJ translators did not think the apocryphal books were of the same theological authority as the other books or too expensive to print. The first editions of the KJV printed the apocrypha.

That is a very different question, of course, from whether the aprocryphal books should be included; I tend to favor the Catholic position on this. Since I recognize that all decisions regarding the Biblical texts were made by committees of men. It is neither surprising nor disturbing to me that different groups prefer different texts.

You are once again making a strawman by putting your interpretation about what I said forward. I stated that Protestant publishers (who's unilateral actions suggest that they think they are an ecclesial authority on par with the Catholic Magesterium) are the ones who later elected to not publish the deuterocanonicals to save costs. I did not say that the leader of the Protestant Church's (King James) paid translators of KJV did that.

Besides, I don't really know why I am engaging you here since if I wanted to debate or discuss religion with a Unitarian I would go to one of your own forums and not come to a Baptism forum.

Are you really arguing that earlier translations are necessarily better than later translations? If so, then do you claim that the 1908 revision of the Vulgate ordered by Pope Pius X is inferior to the KJV? And why not just go back to the originals as your primary text, instead of using a Latin intermediary?

You are the one trying to make the general case. I am making a specific case. Please don't re-project my words and generalize into new meanings. Why not go back to the primary text? Because we made a firm decision to make the Ecclesial Latin the normative language that we could freeze to preserve the language semantics from drifting by the ever changing vernacular of the secular languages. That was brilliant. This prevents modern vernacular from injecting anachronistic interpretations into scripture every few generations like contemporary readers of KJV routinely do. There are other reasons for this I don't have time to get into here - but something to do with 'beware of Greeks bearing gifts'.

Again, you are using insults instead of facts to support your arguments. That's exactly what you (quite rightly) called Ahimaaz Smith out for.

It seemed to me that you attacked Pastor Billy-Reuben for supporting a Bible sponsored by somebody who was a King by claiming that kings are pagans. If I got that wrong, then please explain what your point was exactly regarding kings and paganism, and how that is relevant to the validity of the KJV.

You are the one attributing negative attribution and judgments to statements not even directed at you and which can be just as readily taken at "plain value" to mean a number of orthogonal things - some complimentary. Ask yourself why you are plainly choosing to find the negative in a comment not even directed to you when one could just as easily find a positive? Are you a negative person or just a judgemental person? Only a hypocritical liberal would think to play the role of mediator while taking his vig and re-posturing to feather his own nest by instigating his next conflict. Speak for yourself and let Brother Billy speak for himself. Neither he nor I need a middle man as a broker.

I do not think going to heaven has anything to do with being Baptized. God loves all of His children, and, if there is an eternal life, I do not believe that He would torture any of us in Hell or in the wholly extra-Biblical Purgatory. I also don't think He wants us to torture ourselves or each other on Earth. I seem to be in the minority here at Landover on those points.

And now you try to project into God's head what you want God to believe? These are all useless speculations. You have a strong pattern of "projecting" that is not productive to the dialog. This extends from a self-centered point of view and is most often proven to be a "liberal disease" that has its roots in hubris; you are quite infected with it. Your line of reasoning always takes the form "I don't think.." or "I don't believe...". I am sorry I trust the pedigree of the apostolic Catholic Church over your dubious opinion. Sorry, your form of thinking is always a negation form of thinking that is self centered. That makes it immediately suspicious and most definately fallable since its by definition a form of relativism based on negation of other's perspectives. It never self asserts its own objective truth since it lacks its own objective true. Its intrinsically parasitical.

You are free of course to embrace your own thoughts about what is "good enough" for God just as Cain thought his sacrifice would be "good enough for God" - but was of course proved to be wrong and rejected.

You belittled others as "dialectical pluralists," yet the Church itself embraces ecumenicalism. I do not think Pope Benedict would very much enjoy your snide comments about top hats and Johnny Walker-boots when referring to the beliefs of other Christians. Do you?

Here we go again. In the vernacular of fencing that was nothing but an "invite". For those who embrace religious pluralism (ahem, that would be you) this should be taken as a supreme compliment. So how is it that the secular aggregator of all religions, a unitarain, finds the word pluralism belittling? Its your bread and butter oh confused one. Or have you forgotten that in your system of theology, or more accurately your humanistic philosophy, the more choices to experience the higher the probability the truth is to be found in the collective web of fragments of truth held by all. I bet you don't know that the The Borg are a good and fair model for the pluralistic network representation that you Unitarians think is nirvana didn't you?


ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I am remiss in not having congratulated you. Congrats!

There's nothing wrong with marrying an older woman, and don't let anyone tell you anything different.

Well, thanks!
Actually, its the other way around as her mom is closer to my age. My new young fiance is quite a catch with a high IQ and a maturity that puts her way out of the reach of the poor young men that were pursuing her but which she found - "boring". To make it worse she looks 10 years younger than she really is and could easily pass as a teenager. That can be embarrassing in some social contexts.

God has been has been good to me.

ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Why should Jesus give you a leg up, papist?



Could you show us exactly where the Holy Bible tells us to "consumate a marriage engagement?" As far as I know, you're supposed to wait until you are actually married before attempting to make future soldiers for Christ. What you are doing is called rape. The fact that you bribed her with a cheap ring doesn't change the facts.

How much have you paid her father?

Yet another name change Zeke?
Apparently you missed my play on words. The word consumate is often associated with the marital embrace but it is also related to finalizing the covenant or contract; thus the engagement ring.

And I can assure you that one of the very reasons I choose this woman was because of her commitment to Christian chastity and deferring the martial acts till after marriage. I am an honorable man. And the ring is neither a bribe or cheap by any stretch of the imagination but rather an expression of commitment, affection and my intention to go forward - God so willing.

ApostolicChristian

[SayvedByTheLord]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

You disgusting pervert. Certainly women cannot think for themselves and must be guided by True Christian™ men but to refer to her as "quite a catch" is demeaning.

Have you considered that this is in fact a mercy marriage on her part because Jesus has commanded her to save your hellbound soul ?

Well, thanks!
Actually, its the other way around as her mom is closer to my age. My new young fiance is quite a catch with a high IQ and a maturity that puts her way out of the reach of the poor young men that were pursuing her but which she found - "boring". To make it worse she looks 10 years younger than she really is and could easily pass as a teenager. That can be embarrassing in some social contexts.

God has been has been good to me.

ApostolicChristian

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

I suspect that you are using NIV and now you will see why that so-called "Bible" is in error.

Jas:5:14: Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Jas:5:15: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
Jas:5:16: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

The verses do not support your translation. You will note that 14 & 15 refer to only the healing of the sick by forgiving sins that may have caused the sickness but 15 concedes the possibility that the sick recipient had not committed any sins but will be forgiven for any he has committed. I repeat, this refers to only the healing of the sick and does not include the healthy.

Then there is a period and James:5:16 makes a new statement. The effect of this is to address his audience, who are Jas:1:1: James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. They are not church elders; James addresses the laymen of the tribes; 14 & 15 mention a cure for sickness involving church elders.

What does James:5:16 say? It does not say, “clearly teaches us that we must “confess our sins to one another,” it says confess your faults – therein lies the distinction. The advice is, of course good: by seeing our own faults we become better people.

The 2,000 year old apostolic teaching and the actual practices and traditions of the Early Church as evidenced by the Early Church Fathers does not support your rebuttal. Frankly, neither do the anachronistic renderings of scripture you toss up as inferior chaff. Recall too that there is no punctuation, nor verse numbers in the original Greek – its all one continuous expression of words. Are you sure you can trust your Protestant translators to get the punctuation in the right places without any personal knowledge of the apostolic teachings??.

So, you would have us believe that sin is not a sickness of the heart or the mind or the soul and the priests (elders) will only forgive the sins of those who are outwardly sick? That is just silly but I will take this as a tacit admission that priests can and did forgive sins for at least those who are sick. Bravo we are making progress since you just admitted to the authority of the priesthood to forgive sins. Is it such a major leap of faith to assume that God would not want the priests to forgive sins of people who had no signs of outward sickness? If they fib about being ill do those forgiven sins revert? How about a little tummy ache or a headache or a gnawing guilt feeling over that little episode of adultery that causes us anxiety or spoils the joy of marital relations with the wife? Is that sick enough to warrant us asking a priest for forgivness? ;-)

Come on – be intellectually honest here. You think physical illness is higher up in the taxonomy than sin in the grand plan for salvation? I think Jesus told us that sin is the worst thing of all and to be avoided and repented of when we do sin. Why heal the fibber with the hangnail but not forgive the adulterer with the body of Samson if the latter’s unforgiven sins prevents him from attaining salvation and the prior’s sins are so minor that his healing only makes it easier to scratch that case of jock itch? And how is it that faults are not implicit of sins? Or are you one of those strange sorts of people that take sin as a virtue? Uh, huh, just brilliant scripture rendering Ezbath...

These verses prove you are backward in the salvation hierarchy. God would rather a person be lame (e.g. sick) than in a state of sin. Forgiveness is more important than physical healing of a body we can't take with us to heaven:

Matthew 18:7-8 (KJV) Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh! 8Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

And of course you won’t accept as evidence the well vetted historical evidence of the early church as proof that you are forcing a narrow interpretation will you? Of course not – the person who knows or suspects that they are wrong is not interested in the truth. This sort only wants to “win the contest” to save face and disallow any evidence that is most condemning to their own credibility and argument.

But if you are open to the truth the Early Church history clearly shows that the early Christians all practiced public confession of one’s sins.

“As an aside” I also find it remarkable that you conveniently ignored the many other verses that I presented as direct scriptural evidence that we must confess our sins. What about the direct evidence for confession present in Acts, or Paul’s words or Matthew’s or John’s???

The Word of God must be taken in full or not at all. God can not be divided against Himself – nor can once arbitrarily claim The Church was wrong in her ancient practices that predate even the bible’s canonization. So, I assert that you are just cherry picking verses and ignoring others. As well you are hiding behind poor translations and anachronistic semantics to defend your own doctrinal bias while completely ducking the preponderance of other scriptural evidence that contradicts you. Sadly, you are electing to completely ignore other important information and holding fast to a false teaching that leaves you light years away from truth. That is a rather self defeating behavior don’t you think? Why for God’s sake ignore evidence that is important for your salvation?

Here is the historical proof if you are man enough to taste the truth:

“In church confess your sins, and do not come to your prayer with a guilt conscience. Such is the Way of Life...On the Lord's own day, assemble in common to break bread and offer thanks; but first confess your sins, so that your sacrifice may be pure." Didache, 4:14,14:1 (c. A.D. 90).

"Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness[of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop." Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyraeans, 9 (c. A.D. 110).

"Moreover, that this Marcus compounds philters and love-potions, in order to insult the persons of some of these women, if not of all, those of them who have returned to the Church of God--a thing which frequently occurs--have acknowledged, confessing, too, that they have been defiled by him, and that they were filled with a burning passion towards him. A sad example of this occurred in the case of a certain Asiatic, one of our deacons, who had received him (Marcus) into his house. His wife, a woman of remarkable beauty, fell a victim both in mind and body to this magician, and, for a long time, travelled about with him. At last, when, with no small difficulty, the brethren had converted her, she spent her whole time in the exercise of public confession, weeping over and lamenting the defilement which she had received from this magician." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

"Such are the words and deeds by which, in our own district of the Rhone, they have deluded many women, who have their consciences seared as with a hot iron. Some of them, indeed, make a public confession of their sins; but others of them are ashamed to do this, and in a tacit kind of way, despairing of [attaining to] the life of God, have, some of them, apostatized altogether; while others hesitate between the two courses, and incur that which is implied in the proverb, 'neither without nor within;' possessing this as the fruit from the seed of the children of knowledge." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:13 (A.D. 180).

"Father who knowest the hearts of all grant upon this Thy servant whom Thou hast chosen for the episcopate to feed Thy holy flock and serve as Thine high priest, that he may minister blamelessly by night and day, that he may unceasingly behold and appropriate Thy countenance and offer to Thee the gifts of Thy holy Church. And that by the high priestly Spirit he may have authority to forgive sins..." Hippolytus, Apostolic Tradition, 3 (A.D. 215).

"In addition to these there is also a seventh, albeit hard and laborious: the remission of sins through penance...when he does not shrink from declaring his sin to a priest of the Lord." Origen, Homilies on Leviticus, 2:4 (A.D. 248).

"For although in smaller sins sinners may do penance for a set time, and according to the rules of discipline come to public confession, and by imposition of the hand of the bishop and clergy receive the right of communion: now with their time still unfulfilled, while persecution is still raging, while the peace of the Church itself is not vet restored, they are admitted to communion, and their name is presented; and while the penitence is not yet performed, confession is not yet made, the hands Of the bishop and clergy are not yet laid upon them, the eucharist is given to them; although it is written, 'Whosoever shall eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.'" Cyprian, To the Clergy, 9 (16):2 (A.D. 250).

"Moreover, how much are they both greater in faith and better in their fear, who, although bound by no crime of sacrifice to idols or of certificate, yet, since they have even thought of such things, with grief and simplicity confess this very thing to God's priests, and make the conscientious avowal, put off from them the load of their minds, and seek out the salutary medicine even for slight and moderate wounds, knowing that it is written, 'God is not mocked.' God cannot be mocked, nor deceived, nor deluded by any deceptive cunning. Yea, he sins the more, who, thinking that God is like man, believes that he evades the penalty of his crime if he has not openly admitted his crime…I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one should confess his own sin, while he who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord?" Cyprian, To the Lapsed, 28-29 (A.D. 251).

"It is necessary to confess our sins to those whom the dispensation of God's mysteries is entrusted." Basil, Rule Briefly Treated, 288 (A.D. 374).

"These are capital sins, brethren, these are mortal." Pacian of Barcelona, Penance, 4 (A.D. 385). [ed: differentiation of venial and mortal sins)

"For if any one will consider how great a thing it is for one, being a man, and compassed with flesh and blood, to be enabled to draw nigh to that blessed and pure nature, he will then clearly see what great honor the grace of the Spirit has vouchsafed to priests; since by their agency these rites are celebrated, and others nowise inferior to these both in respect of our dignity and our salvation. For they who inhabit the earth and make their abode there are entrusted with the administration of things which are in Heaven, and have received an authority which God has not given to angels or archangels. For it has not been said to them, 'Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.' They who rule on earth have indeed authority to bind, but only the body: whereas this binding lays hold of the soul and penetrates the heavens; and what priests do here below God ratifies above, and the Master confirms the sentence of his servants. For indeed what is it but all manner of heavenly authority which He has given them when He says, 'Whose sins ye remit they are remitted, and whose sins ye retain they are retained?' What authority could be greater than this? 'The Father hath committed all judgment to the Son?' But I see it all put into the hands of these men by the Son." John Chrysostom, The Priesthood, 3:5 (A.D. 387).

"The Church holds fast its obedience on either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a similar condition…Each is allowed to the Church, neither to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone. Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests; heresy, which has not the priests of God, cannot claim it. And by not claiming this power heresy pronounces its own sentence, that not possessing priests it cannot claim priestly power. And so in their shameless obstinacy a shamefaced acknowledgment meets our view. Consider, too, the point that he who has received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of retaining sin. For thus it is written: 'Receive the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.' So, then, he who has not received power to forgive sins has not received the Holy Spirit. The office of the priest is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and His right it is specially to forgive and to retain sins. How, then, can they claim His gift who distrust His power and His right?" Ambrose, Concerning Repentance, I:7-8 (A.D. 388).

"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." Augustine, Christian Combat (A.D. 397).

"Just as in the Old Testament the priest makes the leper clean or unclean, so in the New Testament the bishop and presbyter binds or looses not those who are innocent or guilty, but by reason of their office, when they have heard various kinds of sins, they know who is to be bound and who loosed." Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 3:16,19 (A.D. 398).

Bottom Line: Confess your grave sins committed after baptism to an apostolically ordained priest or suffer dieing impenitent and committing the single unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit – ignoring His unceasing lifelong call to repentance.

ApostolicChristian

[Micah Boenheffer]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

.

But at this moment I am finding myself severely preoccupied in tending to a fine Christian young lady's insistence that I take the time to consumate our very recent marriage engagement with a diamond engagement ring proportionally expressive of her rarity and chastity.

So how many carats would be expressive of the rarity and chastity of the star of the Tijuana donkey show?

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

So how many carats would be expressive of the rarity and chastity of the star of the Tijuana donkey show?

Technically a single quality carrot is sufficient since it does not make the young lass feel overly conspicuous in her chastity nor create a tension between modesty and the blissful thoughts that could lead to sin. But in an ironic way your mention of Tijuana changes the culture to the South of The Border NAFTA standards - which puts a certain worm in the agavae so to speak that requires a compelling diplomacy. And that means "a bunch".

ApostolicChristian

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Technically a single quality carrot is sufficient since it does not make the young lass feel overly conspicuous in her chastity nor create a tension between modesty and the blissful thoughts that could lead to sin. But in an ironic way your mention of Tijuana changes the culture to the South of The Boarder NAFTA standards - which puts a certain worm in the agavae so to speak that requires a compelling diplomacy. And that means "a bunch".

ApostolicChristian

Do you by any chance live in Mexico and minister to junkies and whores (when you're not in jail or passd out in some gutter)? Just wondering.

You remind me of someone.

[ApoplecticFalseChristian]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

Do you by any chance live in Mexico and minister to junkies and whores (when you're not in jail or passd out in some gutter)? Just wondering.

You remind me of someone.

No, you must have me confused for one of your other drinking buddies.

But I do contribute in a very modest way to select joint ecumenical programs (Skycross) to help the poor in Mexico. But at this time I am called to save what schismatics and heretics in the USA I can that have no excuse of "invincible ignorance" like the poor Mexicans do; proper apostolic teaching is widely available but too often ignored.

Here, this is a photo of one of my better saves. In the last Florida hurricanes God pointed out that an entire Baptist congregation was in need of baptism. So in cooperation with His mighty works we had a natural Baptism by deluge and had the whole assembly converted in mass in one mighty deed. Letting them worship in the Catholic Church while they repaired their house stuck. But I secretly believe they converted just because they saw a better deal to be had in only putting the traditional buck in the collection plate over the tithing and special assessments for the new roof. God's economy of salvation does work in mysterious ways brother...

ApostolicChristian

[StarrKingGrad]

Re: Why Roman Catholic Papists Are NOT Christians

So you say. But I have something you do not have

Yes, you do, a girlfriend who is more interested in what you buy for her than she is in you. Discussing the size of your fiancee's diamond, that's a real imitation of Christ for you.

My sheepskin is the living Lamb of God which trumps your undemonstrated secular pedigree everytime.

My sheepskin is the sheet on which the Bible was written. But you cannot BS me about things that I have read that you obviously have not.

You seem to subscribe to a "let's all hold hands and sing kumbaya" sort of religious pluralism that sounds more like babel than it does a single cornerstone that will scale in the universal sense like the little Rock of Peter built on the corner stone of Christ.

That is a caricature, not an argument. And in what way is that relevant to the fact that your arguments are not supported by the evidence you have offered? I'm not the one proselytizing here.

And let's let brother Billy speak for himself yes?

He doesn't need your permission to speak for himself. Billy-Reuben is a tortured soul, because his heart tells him to be open and kind and accepting and his religion tells him to hate. I frankly feel sorry for the man, but he's not a lout who goes around insulting everyone who disagrees with him, or a bigshot who thinks he needs to tell everyone how much money he has, either.

He does not need a relational pimp or a sock puppet like broker playing the faux role of a neutral arbitor or to run interference.

He doesn't need help debating, he is quite skilled at that. You, however, need somebody to show you that when you insult those who disagree with you, you make your own side look stupid.

And by the way you sure have a funny way of agreeing when you assert that what Brother Billy sees as "plain meaning" I prove to be contradictory and not so plain when one looks at all the verses all in context.

That's exactly what the "True Christians" say when they are caught in a contradiction. I have read the entire Bible in the original languages, I am well aware of the context, and the plain fact is that in context or otherwise, there is not a word about Apostilic Succession in the Bible. If you want to apply your interpretation, that is fine, that is faith, and I respect that. But don't expect everyone else to be convinced just because you, or Aquinas, said that something is so.

I suppose though from your out-of-school comments

Yes, I am out of school now. Since you never were in a school of theology, you probably might not want to call attention to the fact that I know what I'm talking about, whereas you simply parrot phrases that others have given to you.

that no one in your seminary school ever taught you the Summa Theologica and St. Thomas Aquinas' 4 senses of scripture did they?

I have read both Summa Theologica and Summa Contra Gentiles. They contain many fine ideas, though, of course, I do not agree with all of them. If you are saying that the plain text of the Bible does not agree with you, so you have to resort to interpreting mysteries, that is a perfectly acceptible theological point of view. Again, that's faith, not logic.

If not I must ask, did you fail out of school or just lose the faith and drop out?

Are you just a sock puppet for Ahimaaz? That's his style, too, throw out a couple of Bible verses then start insulting everyone.

Surely you are not forgetting the apostle John are you? Hello, remember him?

Your rhetorical tricks do not impress anyone. I don't care if you have scorn for me, because I have read all of the books that you just quote.

He was a young man and the only loyal apostle who stayed with Jesus to the very end at the cross with Mary and while tortured cruelly later in life was not known to be martyred.

Mary Magdalen stood also at the cross, so John was not the only apostle there.

John died sometime in the 100AD time-frame and so his last works recorded in Revelations come many years later than you imply through a clever appeal to just "the gospel".

Revelation is not a Gospel. The writer of the Gospel of John and the writer of Revelation (BTW it's Revelation, singular, not Revelations, plural) were not the same man. If you'd read them in the original Greek, that would be immediately obvious to you, their writing styles and vocabulary are totally different. That's something you lose when you ensconce your view of truth into a translation.

You take the whole entire Word of God or you take none of it. Sorry, no pick-n-choose buffet theology here please - we are told that we must live by every word that comes from God.

So, what exactly do you make of 1 Timothy 3:2, which says that a Bishop must have one wife? People keep asking that question, and you keep ignoring it. Can't you're "whole entire Word of God" accomodate that verse? Are you afraid to answer?

the very reason the Catholic Church formalized its canon in the first place was to prevent the many circulating spurious works from being confused with the inspired word and to put down early heresies.

If Catholic scholars are so incompetent that they can't understand the words of Paul in the original Greek and so inarticulate that they can't explain them to the laity well enough to fight heresies, then I suppose ensconsing the Bible into a single translation makes perfect sense.

You should also know that The Catholic Church has also formalized the cannon to fully integrate scripture into its liturgy. Most non-Catholics do not know that the Catholic Church lives and breaths scripture.

I am well aware of this, my best friend is a Catholic priest. BTW, I showed him the stuff that you posted. He agrees with you on the whole on apostilic succession, but he thinks you're a horse's ass and said that he'll pray for you. His words, not mine.

But did you understand what you read? These men are all Catholics and part of our heritage and family. As we say "Origen an Augustine were friends of ours, we knew these Catholics, you are no Origen or Augustin".

If you really say that, you need to think about replacing slogans with thoughts. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that you know nothing of Origen's theology. Origen said that the Logos is distinct from, and subordinate to, God. Do you agree? If so, what do you make of John 1:1 in that light?

Is salvation dependent on IQ or just a lucky guess on which of the 33,000 or so non-Catholic denominations might have it right.

I do not believe that salvation depends on your IQ or the church that you attend. I know for a fact that, before Catholic dogma was cemented, there were plenty of varying opinions. Your notion that there was just one form of Christianity until the Catholic Church splintered is just laughable.

Since you don't think the Catholic reference is wrong or right then why not go back to the original Church on the assumption it never lost what it always had - the truth?

Because I've read the early church father's writings and they had vigorous disagreements on virtually every aspect of doctrine. Those disputes were settled by ecumenical councils, but I hardly think that writing a committee report is the same thing as having always had the truth.

Flipping a coin on the new 20th century religion of Unitarian Universalism or any new Protestant revisionism seems pretty cavalier to me.

Well, Father Ayala thinks I am anything but cavalier, and he, unlike you, (a) knows me and (b) is part of the Apostilic Succession.

Mark 5:9 (KJV) And he asked him, What is thy name? And he answered, saying, My name is Legion: for we are many.

There are a lot more Catholics than there are Unitarians.

Celibacy has nothing whatsoever to do with apostolic succession and you know it. Intellectual dishonesty is not very becoming.

Now who is picking and choosing? If you like something, you call it Apostilic Succession, if you don't, you call it superfluous. Well, until you answer the question that people keep raising about Paul saying that a Bishop must have a wife, you have no credibility.

I won't go any further with your baiting.

I know. That's because you don't really understand the things you are saying, you've never studied the writings of the early church fathers, you haven't read the Bible in the original languages, you haven't read the Vulgate. What you do is grab arguments from books or proselytiztion manuals, and completely ignore any discussion that would actually cause you to debate others who have done their homework.

Seriously, this is the way you argue: The Bible says X, if you assume that Apostle = Priest. Why should you assume that? Because Augustine said so. Why should you believe Augustine? Because Augustine was an Apostle because Apostle = Priest. Every single argument you make is of that nature. That is fine as a matter of faith, but it is not a logical proof.

The Catholic Bibles are updated now and then to take advantage of the latest archaeological evidence and advances in academic scholarship and to correct the few publishing and minor translation errors (e.g. dead sea scrolls). KJV has a well established litany of errata. If in doubt Google "KJV errors" and count the score of pages.

You are the person who called KJV infantile because it is only 400 years old, not me. I have read the originals, I don't need a translation, and I fully agree with you that KJV has many translation errors. So does the Vulgate.

I suppose know you will tell us that Unitarian's that come into existence in the 1960's are the true church in which those promises apply? Go ahead - say it so we can get it out on the table and put that to bed too.

You understand nothing about Unitarianism. Frankly, you don't understand much more about Catholicism.

I stated that Protestant publishers... are the ones who later elected to not publish the deuterocanonicals to save costs. I did not say that the leader of the Protestant Church's (King James) paid translators of KJV did that.

So you did, and I withdraw my remark. But my point remains, that calling someone else's faith infantile is the height of being infantile.

Besides, I don't really know why I am engaging you here since if I wanted to debate or discuss religion with a Unitarian I would go to one of your own forums and not come to a Baptism forum.

You really aren't the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, are you? Anyway, I fully expect you to stop responding to me, since you haven't responded in any substantive way to the points that Billy-Reuben made. You don't respond to any challenge except to say that the Bible verses you quoted earlier, taken in the context of Catholic theology, prove that Catholic theology is correct.

Please don't re-project my words and generalize into new meanings. Why not go back to the primary text?

The plain meaning of the Vulgate does not support your points, either. You have a right to your faith, but you could at least respect others who disagree with you.

There are other reasons for this I don't have time to get into here - but something to do with 'beware of Greeks bearing gifts'.

Wow. You just insulted the writers of the Gospels for choosing to write in Greek. I'm speechless.

You are the one attributing negative attribution and judgments to statements not even directed at you and which can be just as readily taken at "plain value" to mean a number of orthogonal things - some complimentary.

I have no clue what attributing negative attribution means.

Ask yourself why you are plainly choosing to find the negative in a comment not even directed to you when one could just as easily find a positive?

If I have misunderstood you, then please explain, exactly what was your point about kings being pagans? How does that relate to a discussion of the KJV 1611?

Speak for yourself

OK, I will speak for myself.

And now you try to project into God's head what you want God to believe? These are all useless speculations.

Your memory isn't much better than your ability to argue logically, is it? You asked me what I believed, and I told you. I'm not trying to shove my opinions down anyone's throat.

Your line of reasoning always takes the form "I don't think.." or "I don't believe..."

That is because I speak for myself. Isn't that exactly what you asked me to do not two paragraphs up?

Sorry, your form of thinking is always a negation form of thinking that is self centered. That makes it immediately suspicious and most definately fallable since its by definition a form of relativism based on negation of other's perspectives. It never self asserts its own objective truth since it lacks its own objective true. Its intrinsically parasitical.

Look, you can call me self-centered or you can call me a relativist, but I can't be both, since those terms are mutually exclusive.

You are free of course to embrace your own thoughts about what is "good enough" for God just as Cain thought his sacrifice would be "good enough for God" - but was of course proved to be wrong and rejected.

You are free of course to speak your own thoughts, just as Balaam's ass did.

Here we go again.

There is is. The refrain of everyone in human history who is exasperated because he is losing a debate. Better to focus on mechanics of communication than on substance of the arguments, eh?

In the vernacular of fencing that was nothing but an "invite".

I thought you Catholics eliminated the vernacular by turning everything into 2nd Century Latin.

For those who embrace religious pluralism (ahem, that would be you) this should be taken as a supreme compliment. So how is it that the secular aggregator of all religions, a unitarain, finds the word pluralism belittling?

I do not object to the word pluralism. I object to your use of the term dialectical pluralism, since, if it is dialectical, there are only two points of view, and that hardly constitutes a plurality. But I don't think you're quite bright enough to understand all of the terms that you toss around. You're more a copy and paste kind of debater than an original thinker.

Or have you forgotten that in your system of theology, or more accurately your humanistic philosophy, the more choices to experience the higher the probability the truth is to be found in the collective web of fragments of truth held by all.

I haven't forgotten it because that is not what Unitarians believe. We can learn from everyone, but we are hardly so solipsistic (look it up in a dictionary) that we claim to have the sole truth. I'll leave that to dogmatists like you and Landover.

I bet you don't know that the The Borg are a good and fair model for the pluralistic network representation that you Unitarians think is nirvana didn't you?

Unitarians celebrate individuality. The Borg force everyone to conform to their ideals; they were quite Catholic in that respect.

My point is not that Unitarians are right and Catholics are wrong. It is that you argue like a child, insulting everything that you disagree with because you don't have a sufficient understanding of the sources to have an informed opinion. What's worse, now you resort to making your fiancee's sexual history a matter of public record and talking about how big a diamond you're going to buy as a way to bolster your standing. Trust me on this, nobody here is impressed by that kind of immaturity.

Pastor Billy-Reuben is winning this argument simply because (a) he actually understands the Bible and (b) he is nice and respectful, whereas you are neither.

Starrkinggrad