|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
| SOURCE | POST |
| AAM
REPOSTING |
Saturday
or Sunday Sabbath, pt. 15
Lou writes: Saturday or Sunday Sabbath, pt. 11 The Catholic Church did not give the Bible to the world. Andrews historical citations were purely Catholic-biased works. Just as in his denunciations of the Albigensians and Waldensians as heretics propagating such rediculous doctrines. These are all lies. It is the objective the Catholic Church to malign all who disagree with her. The only crime of the Albigensians is their refusal to acknowledge the authority of Rome. They were indeed the continuation of the church founded by Christ, keeping His pure teachings and exalting His Word. This infuriated the catholic brass and they turned their full attention on exterminating them. It was indeed prophesied in the book of Revelation that Christ's church would be widely scattered and most operated underground to escape the papal persecutions. These dear people were the true christians. They held to the pure doctrines of the Bible and they emphatically denied popery to the death. They were brave soldiers of Christ who, armed with the helmet of salvation and the breastplate of faith, loved not their lives unto death. These have been maligned by the Catholic Church as the vilest of filthy heretics. Indeed, the false charges that they heaped on these dear people the Catholic Church was guilty of themselves! Roman Catholicism is a religion of lies. They are linked to their father, the devil, who is the father of lies. Catholicism's hatred of Bible believers is well documented and is their permanent legacy to the world. These posts alone would show even the casual reader the contempt with which the representatives of this church has for the Word of God. Again, I reiterate that the Catholic Church is not the friend of the Scriptures. Andrew responds: I cannot believe that you heap praises upon the Albigensians and Waldensians while you vilify the Catholic Church that defended TRUE Christianity. Many if not most Protestant sources would have the same misgivings about them as Catholics. You really do not know your history at all, do you? I am thunderstruck at your defense of wickedness, particularly regarding the Cathari. The Albigensians were part of the Cathari heresy. Strict dualists, they believed that matter was eternal and the result of the evil god. They rejected the Old Testament. Not only was the Eucharist denied but replaced water baptism with the imposition of hands and a prayer. Marriage was considered unclean. At their height, the Cathar numbered some four million. Priests were ridiculed. They vilified the Catholic Church, calling her members the Romanists. They saw themselves as the righteous Church, outside of which there was no salvation, and the Catholic Church being the one of inquity, leading to perdition. They castigated the Catholic Church as the woman of Revelation, the Whore of Babylon, with the Pope as the anti-Christ. They held many of the Scriptures in high regard, but spiritualized Christ's miracles and saw the parables as allegories. They believed that the good god was the one who had fashioned the things of spirit. He was the author of the New Testament while, as I said, the evil god was the author of the Old Testament. Some of the Cathari even contended that Lucifer was the evil god. They divided themselves into two groups, the PERFECTI and the CREDENTES (believers). The former group, having received the CONSOLAMENTUM, were viewed as the good Christians while the CREDENTES functioned as a catechumenate. Many hoped to receive the CONSOLAMENTUM before death. Aiding in this process, sometimes people were honored and euthanised. After death, they blieved the spirit was rejoined to the soul that was left in heaven. They rejected an bodily resurrection. Those receiving the CONSOLAMENTUM had to denounce the seven sacraments and make a series of promises: not to touch women; not to eat meat or other animal food, not to kill animals, not to take oaths, not to favor war or the death penalty for civil crimes. All images were renounced, with the cross called "the mark of the beast". As I said, the EUTHANASIA / SUICIDE of members was also their practice. Called the ENDURA, they were allowed to die after receiving the CONSOLAMENTUM. This was generally through slow starvation, although the process was sometimes speeded up with the assistance of others. While the Albigenses and other Cathari removed themselves from the Catholic community, the Waldenses sought at first a place within the Church. They were attracked to a simpler life and the counsel of poverty. They sent a delegation to the Third Lateran Council and beseeched Pope Alexander III a sanction for their lifestyle and preaching. However, after an examination of their bible translation and the confused content of their preaching, they were denied. Unlike the Albigensians they did not seek to be heretics, did not deny the sacraments, and did not embrace the later Protestant view of justification by faith. They regarded themselves as a church within a church. Eventually, much of their attraction would be directed to an officially approved group, St. Francis and his followers. They were a small group, protected by some communities and even by Catholic bishops, and persecuted by others. They were often identified with the more severe heretics like the Cathari. Because they tended to be poorly educated and had great difficulty expressing themselves, they would also find themselves marked by the Inquisition. Perhaps what is most tragic for their fortunes was their association in the minds of many with witchcraft. Papal condemnation of sorcery would be interpreted as including them. Indeed, a tract called THE WALDENSIAN IDOLATRY condemned them for actual demonic intercourse and riding sticks through the air. Their worst persecution came at the hand of civil powers. It should be said at this point that a number of the Waldenses returned to full communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the years 1207 to 1208. Pope Innocent III recognized them and gave them his protection. Indeed, some of these reconciled Waldenses even wrote against the Cathari Albigensians! I do not want to spend this entire post on this matter. If you do not believe me, even the most prejudiced anti-Catholic histories will probably tell you this much. Check the facts for yourself. Lou writes: ANDREW: "Keep saying it. If you say it loud enough and long enough some fools might believe you." LOU: I intend to keep saying it. For it will surely bear fruit in bringing others to truth. Andrew responds: As I said . . . Lou writes: ANDREW: "The resurrection changes everything for the true Christian. The fact that it leaves you cold is quite telling about your identity and affiliation." LOU: The resurrection does not change the law of God for the true christian. It establishes the law. Andrew responds: The resurrection confirms the identity and message of Jesus. It overturns the verdict of evil men and the cross. It changes the world. Lou writes: ANDREW: "Okay, let me see, what else can I call you. You worship Michael the Archangel, a mere creature. I guess that makes you a blasphemer and an idolater of a sorts. What else can I call you? Well, you insult women so I guess you are no gentleman. I know, pretty lame, but the really good names are nasty. You are a cult member, an anti-Catholic, a bigot, either a liar or a deceived fool, a fanatic, questionably a non-Christian, hum, I guess that will do for now, thanks for the challenge. Are you demon-possessed? I do not know. Are you hell-bound? I hope not. I guess we can save those labels for me, since this message board has been so generous in trying to make them stick. Ah, I wonder what names we can call Nicholas? No, that would be too easy." LOU: Andrew says I worship Michael the Archangel, who is only a mere creature. LOL!!! Andrew continues to demonstrate his ignorance of Scripture and of God Himself. Andrew, you are indeed unfit to teach others about the Lord. You are a blind man that teaches darkness. What hope is there for those to whom are under your instruction??? I worship Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God. Michael, the Archangel IS THE SON OF GOD. The name *Michael* means "one who is like God". Read the Bible, Andrew. It's Michael that has the power to give life. It's Michael (Christ) who is described as "the great prince that standeth for the children of thy people". It was Michael (Christ) who expelled satan from heaven. It's Michael's (Christ's) voice, the voice of the "archangel" that will be noised throughout the earth when He (Jesus) returns in glory! (Daniel 12:1; Jude 1:9; Revelation 12:7) Andrew responds: I have spoken about this subject before and you confirmed the deification of an angelic creature once more. You provide your own rebuttal, at least in terms of the sensibilities found in any orthodox Catholic or Christian. I really don't have to say anything. Sometimes you make this challenge TOO easy. Lou writes: Andrew is so entangled in the iron cords of his church's traditions, so choked by those iron cords of falsehood, that he's found gasping for air in a vain attempt to charge me as an idolater and a blasphemer of sorts. Sorry, Andrew, it's you and your church that are the blasphemers and idolaters. Andrew responds: Excuse me, you are the one who makes a god out of a creature! Lou writes: Your church blasphemes when they label their pope as "another God on earth". Andrew responds: The Catholic Church does not teach that the Pope is God. He is a human being and a sinner like all the rest of us. He goes to weekly confession and right now is in frail health. He is the visible leader of the Church that places its ultimate trust in Jesus Christ. God has given the successors of Peter great responsibility. Indeed, never before had God given such power to men. This is the rationale behind the honors paid the Pope. Your claims are simply the ravings of an ignorant anti-Catholic bigotry. Peter the First Pope Matthew 16:18-19: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death (gates of hell) shall not prevail against it. I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And I say also unto Thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc." Later Our Lord made Simon-Peter pastor of both the lambs and the sheep, that is His whole flock. John 21: 15-17: When they had
finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do
you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that
I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to
him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord;
you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to
him the third time, "Simon, son of
Our Lord promised that Peter would confirm the faith of the other Apostles: Luke 22:32: " . . . but I have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Changing Simon's name to Peter, our Lord established his Church with Peter at its head. Any Church separated from the See of Peter is not the true Church of Christ. Lou writes: Your church blasphemes when they assume the authority to forgive sins. Andrew responds: No, we simply perpetuate the ministry of Jesus as he commanded. Confession of Sins Numbers 5:6-7: "Say to the
people of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins that men
commit by breaking faith with the
Proverbs 28:13: He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy. 2 Samuel 12:13: David said [confessed] to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said [the absolution] to David, "The Lord also has put away your sin; . . . . Luke 23:43: The good thief is promised paradise in return for his confession on the cross: And he [Jesus] said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise." 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Matthew 3:5-6: Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Acts 19:18: Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices . . . Confession of sin is denoted as necessary in the bible for the forgiveness of sins. The Catholic practice of private confession is based upon the charge from Christ to forgive or to retain sins. The Church and her ministers judge such situations. The confessor can only fulfill this obligation adequately if the penitent tells him the sins for which he needs absolution and penance. There may also be an important element of counsel. Only Priests Can Offer Absolution 2 Corinthians 5:20: So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. John 20:21-23: Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." Matthew 18:18: "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 2 Corinthians 5:18-20: All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. The power to forgive sins is reserved to priests. As long as there is a need for the forgiveness of sins, the priests of the Catholic Church will continue to possess this power from Christ. Christ would not abandon his Church. As long as his Church exists, so will his mercy. The tragedy today is that may opt to remain in their sins. One of the greatest spiritual powers of every priest is neglected. The graces of this sacrament cannot be exaggerated. Lou writes: Your church is an idolater when they bow down and worship their statues and graven images. Andrew responds: We venerate holy objects but divine worship is reserved to God alone. Images: Statues and Pictures Exodus 25:18: And you shall make two cherubim of gold; of hammered work shall you make them, on the two ends of the mercy seat. Numbers 21:8-9: And the Lord said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." John 3:14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life." 1 Kings 6:29: He carved all the walls in the house round about with carved figures of cherubim and palm trees and open flowers, in the inner and outer rooms. (Also verses 32 and 35). The prohibition against images was never absolute. Further, there is a new economy of images due to the incarnation. Jesus is the revelation of the Father. Our very humanity becomes reflective of God. The Scriptures show that God often used images to deepen religious commitment and understanding. The prohibition against "graven images" applies to idolatry, the sin of giving the adoration reserved to God alone to some mere thing. It is peculiar that some critics will oppose the Church's use of sacred art and yet they often have trophies, statuary, toy dolls, photographs, and paintings in their homes. Images that inspire faith and remind us of particularly holy and courageous members of our faith are no more wrong than such pictures of family and friends in our homes. Lou writes: Your church is an idolater when they bow in reverence to a baked cookie enclosed in a SUN-BURST monstrance! Your ancestry is sun worshipping pagans. Andrew responds: Actually not all ostensoriums (monstrances) are sunburst shaped. The so-called "baked cookie" is the consecrated host. Unleaven bread, just as used at the Last Supper is transformed by the words of Jesus at Mass: This is my body. This is the cup of my blood. Jesus is no liar. He comes to us in the Blessed Sacrament, feeding his people around the world and in each generation. God has not abandoned us. We worship the SON OF GOD, not the sun in the sky. The Real Presence in the Eucharist: Our Inheritance Mark 14:22-24: And as they were eating, he took bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them, and said, "Take; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many." The Eucharist was Christ's parting gift to us. It is literally the New Testament itself-- making it present and ratifying it again and again. Jesus gives us his body and blood as the bread of life and our spiritual drink. There is nothing of figurative language about this. If Christ is God and speaks the truth, who are we to call him a liar? Catholics take Jesus at his word. The Greatest Food of All John 6:26-32: Jesus answered them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. Do not labor for the food [meat] which perishes, but for the food [meat] which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal." Then they said to him, "What must we do, to be doing the works of God?" Jesus answered them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent." So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see, and believe you? What work do you perform? Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven." More important than any miraculous food (John 6-11 to 13) or the manna in the desert (Exodus 16-15), the Eucharist is highlighted as our saving food. If there was no change in the elements of bread and wine into the real body and blood of Christ, then our Lord has played us for fools. Such is not the case. There is no deception on Christ's part. A rejection of the Eucharist, by both liberal modernists and by fundamentalist Christians signifies a lack of faith; indeed, it is the intrusion of a sometimes-subtle atheism. A True Bread from Heaven John 6:33-35: "For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." They said to him, "Lord give us this bread always." Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst." John 6:38: "For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me; . . . ." John 6:41: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, "I am the bread which came down from heaven." John 6:48-51: "I am that bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Eucharist that our Lord gives can only be "bread from heaven" if it is truly himself. Jesus is God; he is the one who has come down from heaven. The principle of concomitance is also affirmed here: Jesus is totally present-- alive and complete-- in very fragment of the Blessed Sacrament. He is not dissected in the Eucharist; rather, he is present and acting on our behalf. He grants us a share in eternal life. Jesus Meant What He Said About Eucharist John 6:52-58: The Jews then
disputed among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh
to eat?" So Jesus said to them,
John 6:60: Many of his disciples, when they had heard it, said, "This is an hard saying; who can listen to it? John 6:66-69: After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him. Jesus said to the twelve, "Will you also go away?" Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God." The Jews murmured (John 6:41) and abandoned Jesus just as certain so-called Christians (Protestants) reject the Eucharist today. They did not believe that Jesus was God; obviously God could do all things. Nevertheless, Jesus did not compromise or explain away his teaching in any manner. He insisted upon a literal understanding of the real presence in the Eucharist. There was no misunderstanding. Jesus allowed the Jews who would substitute a Protestant view of Eucharist to abandon him. It is bizarre that Protestants can assail the Eucharist and claim that certain disciples misunderstood him when Jesus acted and spoke this way. The truth is that Jesus would even have allowed the twelve apostles to forsake him rather than to give the impoverished Protestant type of Eucharist. Peter responds correctly. Like his many successors, Peter steers the Church toward the truth of Christ. Jesus is God and whatever God says, no matter how fantastic and deep a mystery, is true. Only the Real Presence Demands Worthy Reception 1 Corinthians 11:27-29: Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. St. Paul tells us that unworthy
reception of Holy Communion is a sacrilege, indeed, it desecrates the real
body and blood of Christ. It is the ultimate in hypocrisy. Such an assertion
that the sacrament might bring damnation instead of salvation must be seriously
considered.
Catholic Worship Malachi 1:11: For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is great among the nations, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure offering; for my name is great among the nations, says the Lord of hosts. Hebrews 13:10: We have an altar from which those who serve the tent [the tabernacle of the Jewish temple] have no right to eat. The bible tells us that there
is a priesthood and sacrifice under the new covenant of Christ. There is
no way that a service of the Word or a
Lou writes: Your church's rituals has all of the earmarks of the pagan nations that your church committed fornication with. Andrew responds: The Roman Catholic Church brought the pagan nations to Christ. Lou writes: Andrew next says that I insult women. Andrew is a certifiable liar. I challenge Andrew to produce a quote from me showing how I insult women. I never discuss women in this forum. I discuss the Bible. And Andrew so hates the Biblical truths that I proclaim that he needs to make up lies about me. And Andrew is deceived into thinking that the Spirit of Christ dwells in him. What a delusion he is in the grips of. Poor man indeed! Andrew responds: How little you know. What surprises does the Lord have waiting for you? What is a "certifiable" liar, do I get my credentials stamped from the church Nicholas built? In any case, your Scriptural attribution still rings in my ears about some of us being like a dog licking up its own vomit. But of course, you never insult women, ha! Lou writes: Next Andrew cites me as a cult member. LOL!!! If he really knew the definition of a cult, he would have abandoned catholicism long ago. Andrew responds: Yes, you are a cult member. These groups are usually very small, somewhat fanatical, and condemn pretty much everyone else. They oppose traditional doctrines and yet claim to be Christian. They can also be secretive, which may not apply in this case. However, they do come across as elitist and as possessing certain singular truths that they are very combative about. They often define themselves by those they are against. This last line is definitely YOU. Lou writes: Next he says that I'm an anti-catholic. I'm anti-CATHOLICISM. I have nothing personal against the catholic people. I have family and other loved ones that are catholic and I'm certainly not against them. Indeed, I try to shed the light of truth in the darkness that catholicism spreads. Andrew responds: I am sure you are a lot of fun at parties and family reunions. Lou writes: Next, Andrew says that I'm a bigot. He doesn't know what the word means. If I were a bigot, I wouldn't allow myself to associate with catholics. I wouldn't allow myself to dialogue with the likes of Andrew. I would consider him a lesser being if I were so biggoted. I wouldn't care if he remained in darkness or not. If I were a bigot, I would mock him and laugh him to scorn. None of these things I do. Bigotry has nothing to do with preaching truth. Shame on you, Andrew. You do stoop so low in making such false and hateful accusations. Perhaps the real bigot is Andrew. He biggoted against the Word of God for this very Word exposes His infidelity to God. Andrew responds: As I have said before, I fully participate in ecumenical dialogue (which you and Nicholas abhor), respecting the faith traditions of others and their noble discipleship. I reserve my apologetics to those who hate the Catholic Church and who cast dispersions upon her teachings and ministers. In contrast, yes, dear Lou, you are a bigot. You associate with Catholics, but only to mock their religion and to insult their intelligence. You seem to relish easy prey that happens upon the message board. You dialogue with the likes of ANDREW (AAM) because you think you are right and can handle an assault to your bigotry. But, you are wrong, terribly so. You make the Word of God say what you want it to say, not necessarily what it does say. You rewrite history the way you demand it to be, not the way it actually happened. You do all this and are blind to the fact. Lou writes: Next, I'm either a liar or a deceived fool, a fanatic, and questionably a christian. Number one, if I'm a liar, you should be able to quench them with truth. But you don't have truth. You only have lies. So the charge of liar falls on you. Andrew responds: So you say, but why would Cathy, Rose, the Truth, Joe, Debi, and others claim similar teachings and confirm my own? How many of those names have been driven away by the deceit and intolerance practiced at Nicholas' message board? Even those sympathetic to some of your views like Gloria and brother andrew have disappeared. A Church containing a billion people confirms my words as TRUTH. You have only Nicholas, maybe your newfound friend in prejudice, and yourself. You do not even entirely agree with the SDA. You are a church unto yourself. Lou writes: A fanatic? Yeah, as much a fanatic for the Lord as you are for catholicism. Andrew responds: Am I? The difference is that outside of infallible doctrines and morals, I can see the Church's blemishes and shortcomings, admit them, and still love her. You magnify the blemish into a cancer, a false caricature of the Church that you condemn with enmity. You admit few faults on your side of the equation. Lou writes: Questionably a christian? You are not in a position to make that judgement. You are blinded by so much error and tradition that you would be rightly questioning yourself on that one. I leave that one in God's hands. He knows who are His. He knows who hears His voice and follows Him wherever He goes. Andrew responds: You are a fallen-away Catholic. That is the most I can say about you. Lou writes: ANDREW: "I did not create a web site and message board the daily berates the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon and the Pope as the anti-Christ. One of my physicians is SDA and he has been quite supportive of my ministry. Further, I am quite sure that he will not abandon sincere believers who love the Lord. No matter whether one calls upon God on Saturday or Sunday, I trust that the Lord hears our prayers and receives our praise. You are an entirely different and more malicious stripe from the kind of Christian I am." LOU: Of course you didn't create a web site that publishes the truth (as negative as it may be) about roman catholicism. On the contrary, you publish lies not only about your church, but about those that are in disagreement with their teachings. I do agree with you that there are sincere christians that call upon the Lord on both Saturday and Sunday and that the Lord both hears them and accepts their praises. God winks at the ignorance of these sincere christians who have been raised in error. But it's these sincere christians who are open to hear His voice that will recognize truth when it's presented to them and they will happily make a break with error as they are convicted of the truth. That's the purpose of Nicholas' board. To expose error and exalt truth. Andrew responds: Nicholas' board probably chases away more Catholics than it attracts. Before you came, he deleted everyone and anyone that showed intelligence in opposing his ideas and speaking up for Catholic truths. When I first encountered him, his views were so extreme that I thought it was a parody web page like the Landover Baptist site. It even occurred to me that he might be using reverse psychology to drive Catholics back into the Church. You cannot believe how surprised I was to discover that he was for real. It astonishes me even more that he has disciples like yourself on his board. Lou writes: And Andrew, you need an awakening here. You are not the gentle "stripe" of christian that you claim to be. You are the one that hurls personal insults, not me. Andrew responds: Excuse me while I take another taste of vomit, yum, yum, thanks for sending it over. It is always nice to share when you make extra. Oops, sorry, I guess those pesty demons Nicholas sent over are trying to take possession, scat, go away! So you don't hurl personal insults? Yeah, right, try another one. Lou writes: Examine yourself closely before God and ask Him if He thinks that your modus operandi is consistent with His Spirit and His teachings. Andrew responds: "Modus operandi"? Ah, maybe there is hope for you after all, at least your vocabulary is growing larger. But seriously, if you love something as much as I love my Catholic faith, then the things you say come across as more than repugnant, but as a declaration of war. Passivity in the face of such an assault is difficult. My spiritual director has also read some of my posts and urged moderation. But, he has also thought I was wasting my time. Is he right? Lou writes: ANDREW: "Boy! Did I hit a cord that time, the record skipped, but the music is the same. Is it a personal insult to call a bigot a bigot? Is it wrong to label an anti-Catholic an anti-Catholic? Pleeease Lou, you can change if you want, but that is what you are. Everything about your posts speaks of fanaticism and prejudice: the peculiar spins on bible verses, the denial of historical facts, the avoidance of contradictory details, the refusal to take correction, the mimicking of ignorant self-professed haters of the Church, etc. Dear Lou, THIS IS YOU, THIS IS YOUR LIFE." LOU: No, you didn't hit a cord. I was merely throwing the charge you leveled at me into your own lap! Andrew responds: So YOU say. Say YOU so. YOU say so. It still YOU. Lou writes: ANDREW: "I have never chosen anything but the Lord. But again, the advice goes for you too buddy." LOU: Sure you have. You have chosen your church and her traditions over and above the Lord and His Word. Andrew responds: As always, there is no contradiction. My allegiance to Christ is one and the same with my fidelity to the Church and the Christian faith. Lou writes: ANDREW: "To narrow my focus of vision to only one of the sources of revelation and then in a fundamentalist manner no less would be to capitulate to your impoverished methodology and mind-set. It would be a betrayal of the truth of the ages and of Jesus Christ. I know better than you about this. You will not believe me on this, but that is the case. You have not made your case in a way that an informed Catholic could accept. You would literally have a good Catholic pretend to be a fundamentalist SDA cult member in order to debate with you about Catholicism. That makes no sense. You want this entire business on your terms, it just will not happen. Any Catholic that does so is ignorantly playing into your hands and is probably ill-prepared to deal with slanted facts and distorted bible texts." LOU: It's not my terms that I'm clamoring for. It's God's terms as laid out in His Word that I'm seeking as a basis for our discussion. You choose to deviate from that type of forum and force catholic tradition into it. Remember, Andrew, my original challenge to Cathy was to prove from the BIBLE that God COMMANDS sunday observance. I didn't ask for extra-Biblical material to be thrust into the mix. The challenge of this thread was always made in the context of Biblical revelation. It is YOU who has not played fair in this discussion. And not without good reason on your part I may add - because sunday observance cannot be Scripturally established. Your church leadership is aware of this fact, Andrew. Why do you persist in this unfruitful endeavor of yours to show Biblical sanctity to sunday observance? Andrew responds: For goodness sake, the mention of the Sunday Observance "Lords day" in Revelation corresponds to the understanding of the term in Christian documents of about the same time period. This is why the other sources are important and have a part to play in this discussion. You could have just responded to my posts with the line, "This is not biblical" and left it at that. While not precisely true, your contention that there is no divine positive command in favor of a Sunday Sabbath was clear and made several times. Your assertion that God directly selected Saturday as the 7th day is one that the Scriptures do not show. You base the Saturday ceremonial observance not on Christian authority but upon the judgment of the ancient Jewish leadership. Fine and dandy, you go your way and I'll go mine. But that is not good enough for you, you have to convince Catholics that Sunday Observance is wrong and those who argue the case are sinning. Just as you will not accept any argument except a strictly biblical one, with you as the authoritative interpreter of course; I cannot accept any argument, nor can any Catholic, that does not include the ancient documents, Catholic tradition, and the statements of the councils and Magisterium. In other words, Lou, we have little or no common ground for discussion. But we try anyway. I think I'll go to the beach. Fun in the sun, here we come! Lou writes: ANDREW: "The Scriptures speak of the importance of the "Lord's day" and the writings from that general period of time, as well as the long-standing practice of the Church, confirms that this is in reference to Sunday Observance. The witness of the Scriptures only extends a few decades into the life of the newborn Church. The missionary character of the New Testament would prohibit it as a full-blown document on Christian liturgical practices and Church structure. There are elements of such information, but not in large detail and not in any systematic presentation. You want the bible to speak about things that it grants to Christ's Church. Because you deny the Church, you are left with a short-circuited approach to Christianity. If that is where you want to stay, that is your business. However, your rabid desire to destroy the Church and to proselytize her membership is a misguided zeal that may come to your undoing." LOU: Yes, indeed the Scriptures speak of the importance of the Lord's Day. That happens to be the Sabbath of the Lord, the day that the Jesus proclaimed Himself to be the Lord of. Nowhere does this apply to sunday. Andrew responds: That is not credible reasoning. The term "Lord's day" is a post-resurrectional term for the day when the Christian community gathered to celebrate the Lord's Supper in commemoration of the Paschal Mystery. There is no immediate data outside the Scriptures to show that the word meant anything else. The say was Sunday. Lou writes: This is what I want you to prove, Andrew. And this is precisely what you cannot do! Andrew responds: Actually the celebration of the "Lord's day" on Sunday hardly needs proving. It is self-evident in an unbroken practice going back to the Apostolic Church. You can personally contend that it might be better to return to the Saturday Sabbath, but that is all you can do. You never did remark upon the practice of the Neocatechumenal Way in celebrating Mass on Saturday evening exclusively. Anticipatory Masses on Saturday can be as early as 4:00 or 5:00 PM. Lou writes: The witness of Scripture is for all time. It was never given to the catholic church to add or delete anything from God's Word. Andrew responds: As for the Old Testament, Jews wrote it, albeit under divine inspiration, and collected the texts. As for the New Testament, Catholics wrote it, albeit under divine inspiration. They gathered the books of the various testaments into an approved canon and rejected the status of others as Scripture. Catholics translated the Scriptures and copied the sacred texts. The Catholic Church preserved the Scriptures and passed them on to us all. She is the Mother of the Bible. Lou writes: My objective is not to destroy your church. Andrew responds: Yes it is. If she surrendered everything you attack, there would be nothing left. Lou writes: I do not posess the sentiments of catholicism when in the past, it was your church who set out to destroy those that were not in agreement with her. Andrew responds: The Church looks back upon many things done in the name of religion in the past with great sadness. Lou writes: I really don't like nor appreciate your last sentence in your paragraph. It sounds like a veiled threat. Is it? I hope not. That I won't tolerate. I expect a clarifying explanation of your last sentence. Andrew responds: I was compelled to offer a quick response to this concern in another post when Nicholas blasted me and deleted my most recent posts. I do not threaten people. Cast in a subjunctive case, I was merely saying that attacking Christ's holy Church may not leave you in good standing when you meet the Lord. While you can and will certainly disagree, the words regard one's spiritual condition and not any kind of JESUIT "HIT-MAN" WARNING that you guys fanaticize about. I suspect the Nicholas was itching all along to erase my posts. He took the first excuse he could find to do so. If you had not been available to respond it would have happened early on. Lou writes: ANDREW: "I had not thought you a fool and so I will say again what you seem unable to understand. Catholics do not understand Scripture outside of the umbrella of tradition. To do so would be to renege on the true faith and the inheritance that comes down to us from the Apostles. I am saying this as directly as possible, but not at the cost of sound Catholic hermeneutics. You want a divine positive statement like, "The Sabbath Day will be on Sunday in the Julian Calendar starting next week, thus saith the Lord!" The New Testament gives us no such ordinance. However, the specificity you demand is not in the Old Testament command either. The People of God, in one case Jewish and in the other Christian, select out the holy day and fuel it with the faith meaning that most reflects their hopes and identity. Yours is the double-talk. [a corrected line] I respond because I think it may be helpful in steering Catholics away from your views." LOU: Your statement is a sad one. That catholics do not understand Scripture outside of the umbrella of tradition. Andrew responds: You don't understand Scripture outside the context of a living and faithful tradition. The only difference is YOU are not aware of it. Lou writes: Catholics will NEVER understand Scripture as long as they remain in that mindset. This principle places tradition ABOVE God's Words. This principle places the catholic institution positionally over and above God (if that were possible). This is unreasonable and sinful. Andrew responds: It is a statement of fact. Further, no one reads and understands the scriptures outside of some sort of tradition. Given the SDA influence, that becomes the backdrop for you. Another understands the Words of God in the Baptist or Lutheran confessions. Even the translation into English is influenced by the beliefs of those who do the critical study. Do you translate a word one way or render it another. The biases of our traditions may affect that outcome. The Catholic Church claims to have the most ancient and faithful living tradition for this important task of understanding the bible and the Christian faith in general. There is nothing unreasonable about this, certainly nothing sinful. Lou writes: But I appreciate your candor. Anyway, in regard to the Sabbath, you claim that specifics in terms of the seventh day Sabbath are not contained in the Old Testament. That's a wrong statement, Andrew. It most certainly is. God NEVER left it to His people, in any dispensation to select their own holy days. This is a direct contradiction of a multitude of Biblical texts. Andrew responds: So you say, but I have not read them and I have read them all. Lou writes: Admitting that sunday observance is not to be found in Scripture would not be against catholic hermaneutics. It would be quite in line with it. For your leadership admits it quite clearly. Andrew responds: Who are you talking to? I have given many sources and texts to review. I know full well the Church's position. Catholic hermenutics would be contradicted by the adoption of a sola-scriptura case. The methodology is fauty. You claim the leadership of the Church admits something but you have failed to give the quote. Did I miss it? Lou writes: It seems contradictory on your part that you would affirm such loyalty to the "shepherds" and yet not make the same admissions that they do. You disclose your words as doubletalk. Andrew responds: Over and over again you repeat a question to which you seem unwilling to hear the answer. There is no contradiction between the biblical testimony and the practices and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. The Church is obedient to the commandments. The Church is the living body of Christ in the world. The apostolic Church-- the Catholic Church-- opted to celebrate her holy day, not on the Jewish Sabbath but on the "Lord's day," Sunday. This practice is continued today. That is my position. That is the position of the Church. It could not be any plainer. You might disagree with it, but that is the situation. You see conflict and division where there is none. I have no views that conflict with the definitive teachings of the Roman Catholic faith. I trust in her deposit of faith and the presence of the Holy Spirit that protects her from error in such matters. Lou writes: ANDREW: "You are an anti-Catholic and every such critic is, to a vast extent, an anti-Christian." LOU: So, then for me to proclaim catholic doctrine, in light of Scripture as false is tantamount to being *anti-christian*? Andrew responds: What Catholic doctrine have you espoused? You do not understand the Church or her doctrines. What you know is distortion. The same misinterpretation would enact against the Word of God you posit against the Church and her teachings. Lou responds: You know not what you say! My faith is in God, His Son, and His Word. Andrew responds: Who plays hooky as St. Michael the Archangel, ha! Lou writes: Those who hold such contempt for His Word are in the truest sense the real anti-christians. Andrew responds: Any who oppose the Church are anti-Catholic and thus anti-Christ. What may say you is your ignorance of the truth. Lou writes: ANDREW: "You are hopeless! The witness of the saints and martyrs shows the face of the Catholic faith, obedient even unto the cross. The Roman Catholic Church is a living sign of contradiction in a hedonistic world enraptured by greed and death. Much of the mockery and persecution that the Church receives today is because she refuses to acquiesce to the evil whims of modernity. As one non-Catholic philosopher said recently, the Catholic Church has become the conscience of the world regarding many issues that we would rather not explore. Pope John Paul II is a hero on behalf of human freedom and the Gospel of Life. I am proud to be a member of this 2,000-year-old institution. Each Sunday we gather to fulfill one of the Lord's most important parting commands, we celebrate the Eucharist: "Do this in remembrance of me." In return, he promises to remain with Peter and the Church until the end of time." LOU: I am hopelessly a Bible-believing christian, humbly following my Lord Jesus and totally respecting and exalting His Word of truth - unlike the catholic church who has set up their own creed, their own laws, their own authority, their own sacrifice, their own forgiveness, their own communion, and their own god. Peace! Andrew responds: Well, you are hopeless, that is true. But, the genuine Bible-Christians are Catholic. You distort the meaning of Scripture, exault your own will over Christ's and his holy Word. You do this and seem mindless to the deed. The creeds are ancient professions of faith that defended the Gospel against distortion and promoted unity in the Church. The precepts of the Church are extensions of that authority given Peter and the Church in the keys. The sacrifice celebrated in the Church is the one oblation of Jesus on the cross that is re-presented in a real but unbloody way upon our altars at the hands of men who share in the one priesthood of Christ. Christ feeds us with his very self and is the source of our communion with one another, the Mystical Body of Christ. Jesus gave the awesome power of forgiving sins to men. Christ's ministry of reconciliation and healing is still enacted for the good of souls. The Church still appeals to almighty God, the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. He is one God in three divine Persons. This is the Christian God-- the Catholic God-- the only God. And he smiles upon his children who remember him on "the Lord's day," Sunday. Amen. |