Today is my last day

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Brent
Conjugal visits for prisoners I vehemently disapprove of. TV too. Can they at least block everything except court TV and perhaps news?

Suppose we force them to watch stuff like "Care Bears", "Dora", "Barney" and the whole gamit of kids shows written to teach kids basic morality?

[Ben Kenobi]

The Southern Baptists are the Wahabists of Chrstianity only they blow up family planning clinics instead of fly planes into buildings.

Actually, I thought Catholics had earned this distinction.

Up here, they are the ones that get vandalised for their prolife stance.

[Dinner]

The real question is what does the bible say about eating kumquats? Surely this is the most evil act imaginable by god and deserves stoning.

[Alexander's Horse]

how would I know? ask one of the people who thinks the bible is just some sort of book of rules.

[Lancer]

"So you're saying that we need jurists with some real hard core prejudices to make the legal system in this country work? "

No, I'm saying that this country is so screwed up that it doesn't realize it anymore. Also, I've lost alot of hope for improvement so I'm being synical (sp?)

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Suppose we force them to watch stuff like "Care Bears", "Dora", "Barney" and the whole gamit of kids shows written to teach kids basic morality?

Yeah!

Gangsta Barney comes to mind!

http://www.uselessjunk.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=817

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lancer
Seems a bit of a broad brush... are there no good southern baptists? Sounds a bit too much like me when I talk about the French to be realistic. Maybe 25 years ago I visited a baptist church in Gainesville Florida with some friends who went there religously. Good folks, not at all racist wackos, just wanted to worship with other believers...

It is a hasty generalization and I bet if we look close enough there were some pretty nice Nazis but that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade.

[Brent]

Okay, let the prisoners watch BYUTV.

Racial prejudice is zero percent excusable, religious prejudice 0.1, and political 0.3%.

[Lancer]

"It is a hasty generalization and I bet if we look close enough there were some pretty nice Nazis but that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade."

Waffen SS birdwatchers association...

[Lancer]

Let's not forget the Skull and Crossbones Cross Stitch Club


Nicer Nazis you can't find than those boys.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin


It is a hasty generalization and I bet if we look close enough there were some pretty nice Nazis but that doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade.

What sort of spade is a spade, Oerdin?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
blacksliding into Christ?

Interesting typo...

[Straybow]

PS: no response to Mar 29th?

[Ben Kenobi]

My apologies, straybow.

If I neglect a post of yours like that, please send me a pm.

No, the RCC refused to acknowledge the need for change, else Luther would never have split. It was the whole attitude of the RCC in keeping the people ignorant "for their own good."

Heck, even the Anglicans at first continued the longstanding RC policy of persecuting those who would translate the scriptures into the vulgar.

I don't have much love for the Anglicans, so I agree with you there. I wouldn't be a Catholic if it were not for the reforms of the Second Vatican council in giving the mass in the vernacular.

Pope John Paul 2 may be the great, but over the long run, Pius 23 will have more effect on the church as a whole.

I regularly read documents across both periods, pre and post, and the change is stunning. From vilifying the heretical protestants to acknowledgements to their Christian faith.

As for reforms, the church did engage in the Counter reformation, and in a sense, is continuing to change even now in response to the actions of Luther, but the difference has to be made between the reformers within the Catholic church, and the reformers outside. Most Catholics now agree that Luther was right in his motives, but wrong in his final step to work outside the church rather than inside.

The rub lies in two inherent fallacies of argument: "on their own without any tradition." Nobody is interpreting "on their own," nor is it possible in any scholarly study to be interpreting "without any tradition." There is always the natural comparison to the standing interpretation of the day and the many and varied traditions.

Okay, so then what is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Please define it in terms you accept, otherwise we'll go round in circles without making any progress.

So what Hahn is really saying is that it is wrong to disagree with RC interpretation of scripture and official tradition. Why? Because they say so on the authority of their interpretation and tradition. Tautology and circular reasoning.

Not so. There are certain issues, pacifism being one of them, where it is valid to disagree with the stance of the church. What Scott is saying here is that it must be scripture and tradition, not one or the other. Many protestant churches have a real problem admitting what you have said here that tradition is essential to the interpretation of scripture.

The Bible does not affirm the inerrancy of the elders or of tradition. It is therefore our place to weigh their input. The motives of particular elders and the accuracy of the knowledge available to them may be questioned without harm to the role of elders as teachers. The additions of neo-Aristotelian philosophy can be rejected as contemporizations of truths in the scripture without harm to the scriptures themselves or traditions that affirm them.

Agreed. This aristotelianism is a very good argument against many of the Scholastics who sought to reconcile these teachings, including Thomas Aquinas. However, the Catholic church does not say that the magesterium is inerrant, or even infalliable other than on very special occasions.

The real jewel in Scott Hahn's teaching is his projection of God, the institutional Church, and the Laity as Daddy, Mommy, and Siblings to the believer. I see it as an inability to embrace God as encompassing the role of Daddy and Mommy to the believer. It is almost as if he is afraid to be weaned from the teat and digest "strong meat" (Heb 5:12ff).

Interesting critique for someone who has read his way into the church. What I predicted, and hoped to see is a step by step refutation of his arguments on the critical issues such as Mary or the Communion of Saints.

Rather I see a collection of ad-hominems that miss the point at hand. I'm a little disappointed straybow. Scott Hahn helped me because he tackled all the issues, but he did not bring me into the Catholic church.

Can you figure out which issue he did not address to help me, the anabaptist?

[Straybow]

My apologies for neglecting my response. It must necessarily be lengthy and I balked at undertaking it. Something entirely unrelated reminded me, so here it is.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

No, the RCC refused to acknowledge the need for change, else Luther would never have split. It was the whole attitude of the RCC in keeping the people ignorant "for their own good." [...]

...As for reforms, the church did engage in the Counter reformation, and in a sense, is continuing to change even now in response to the actions of Luther, but the difference has to be made between the reformers within the Catholic church, and the reformers outside. Most Catholics now agree that Luther was right in his motives, but wrong in his final step to work outside the church rather than inside.

What, exactly, is that difference? And how should it sway one's decision to convert to RC? It is called the Counter Reformation because their goal was to limit or eliminate as much of the reforms as possible. Sure, stamp out the overt corruption that makes the RCC look bad. But real change, for the sake of God alone? No.

It has taken four and a half centuries of "reformers" to accomplish a fraction of what Luther did in one brief lifetime. That comparison is extremely difficult to place in a favorable light, but you are welcome to try.

I see the reformers inside the Roman church as those who were either too cozy with or too fearful of the corrupting influence of power to make a stand for the truth. For at least two full centuries after Luther any reformer was literally risking torture and death. The RCC compromised the truth and fought against change, generation after generation.

It is saddening that Luther's reforms soon fell under the same corruption. Those who rose to power become persecutors against reform. Likewise for C of E, Calvin et al., and even Presbyterians to a small degree. The saddest part of all is that the modern RCC may admit that Luther was right but can't admit that the Popes and Cardinals were wrong. The same pride consists the very heart of Roman Catholicism and can never be excised.

The rub lies in two inherent fallacies of argument: "on their own without any tradition." Nobody is interpreting "on their own," nor is it possible in any scholarly study to be interpreting "without any tradition." There is always the natural comparison to the standing interpretation of the day and the many and varied traditions.

Okay, so then what is the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? Please define it in terms you accept, otherwise we'll go round in circles without making any progress.

The point of Sola Scriptura is that the authority does not lie in those who mediate. The point of RC "Scripture and Tradition" is that they reserve the authority to the heirarchy to decide, without accountability on even an academic level (else they would have listened to Luther).

So what Hahn is really saying is that it is wrong to disagree with RC interpretation of scripture and official tradition. Why? Because they say so on the authority of their interpretation and tradition. Tautology and circular reasoning.

Not so. There are certain issues, pacifism being one of them, where it is valid to disagree with the stance of the church. What Scott is saying here is that it must be scripture and tradition, not one or the other. Many protestant churches have a real problem admitting what you have said here that tradition is essential to the interpretation of scripture.

Ah, Ben, Ben! You've only reinforced my point. It is valid to disagree with the stance of the RCC on pacifism because the RCC allows it. The RCC says it is not valid to disagree with the stance of the church in other areas, such as abortion and birth control and ordination of women and marriage of priests.

No protestant church of which I am aware¹ denies the role of tradition, only the authority of a capital-T-Tradition that has been shaped, pruned, and grafted by an unaccountable body and elevated to a position de facto superior to the scriptures. (The scriptures must be interpreted in light of the official Traditions but Traditions are merely informed by scriptures.)

[...] The additions of neo-Aristotelian philosophy can be rejected as contemporizations of truths in the scripture without harm to the scriptures themselves or traditions that affirm them.

Agreed. This aristotelianism is a very good argument against many of the Scholastics who sought to reconcile these teachings, including Thomas Aquinas. However, the Catholic church does not say that the magesterium is inerrant, or even infalliable other than on very special occasions.

I was too brief and assumed you were fully familiar with the neo-Aristotelian arguments. The underpinnings of all primary RC doctrines are 3rd-4th century neo-Aristotelian beliefs. The seven Sacrements, Apostolic Succession, Transubstantiation, the Communion of Saints, the very nature of salvation in RC teaching: all are meaningless without the foundation of Accident and Substance.

Remove Accident and Substance and you have nothing left. Nothing. I will not elucidate or debate in this post; if you wish to challenge you may do so. At present I'm concerned with dismissing a casual accusation from your post.

The real jewel in Scott Hahn's teaching is his projection of God, the institutional Church, and the Laity as Daddy, Mommy, and Siblings to the believer. I see it as an inability to embrace God as encompassing the role of Daddy and Mommy to the believer. It is almost as if he is afraid to be weaned from the teat and digest "strong meat" (Heb 5:12ff).

Interesting critique for someone who has read his way into the church. What I predicted, and hoped to see is a step by step refutation of his arguments on the critical issues such as Mary or the Communion of Saints.

Rather I see a collection of ad-hominems that miss the point at hand. I'm a little disappointed straybow. Scott Hahn helped me because he tackled all the issues, but he did not bring me into the Catholic church.

Can you figure out which issue he did not address to help me, the anabaptist?

I can't. First, because Hahn isn't the issue. You brought him up, I responded. That's all. And, in truth, I already addressed the Communion of Saints on Mar 27th, in that the RCC has formally admitted that we Prots really are in the Communion of Saints despite centuries of contrary claims by Popes and Councils who ordered us killed off. No pressing need for conversion on that point, then.

Second, Hahn does not address the doctrinal issues with any gravity in what I've read. He restates RC doctrine in his own words, but that is hardly an academic effort worthy of doctoral level of study. I don't know that he ever addresses the philosophical underpinnings of the doctrines or of his own rationalizations.

Third, I apologize for misquoting Hahn. You see, I was relying on memory made hazy by six years of time, too busy to try to find it again. I was actually embarrassed to put the hackneyed words, the so-called "Roman anti-Trinity," into his mouth for fear that I had conflated him with all the anti-Catholic propaganda. Isn't that silly?

God as Father isn't enough. No, we need another Father, and a Mother, too. Hahn does put it that clearly. "[T]he Family of God is the master idea which makes sense out of all the Catholic faith. Mary's our mother, the Pope is a spiritual father, the saints are like brothers and sisters, the Eucharist is a family meal, the feast days are like anniversaries and birthdays. We are God's family. I'm not an orphan; I've got a home" (see The Scott Hahn Conversion Story).

It is very difficult to claim that this is an ad hominem attack on my part. Hahn makes it clear that this special relationship (which he feels can only be found under the RC umbrella) is his deep personal reason for conversion. Bouyer and Danielou and Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) didn't convince him to become RC. After all, he read and loved Luther but never felt compelled to become Lutheran. C.S. Lewis didn't convince him to become Episcopalian.

If he felt like an orphan it is because he was relying on doctrines handed down from so-and-so instead of living his own Christian faith. Most of us have been there at some time. Some people use that as an excuse to drop out altogether and shake their fists at God. Should we follow their example? No. Should we then convert en mass back to RCism just because Hahn did? No.

Read the story. Hahn actually tries to convince the reader that he was the Protestant's Protestant because he studied Luther and Calvin and some Loraine Boettner's "bible of Anti-Catholicism." None of that should matter one bit. Where is Christ? How did Hahn put his faith into action in any way that truly challenged him? It comes across that his pastoral ministry and academic positions were just jobs that fit his resume and allowed him the luxury of study.

Was it simply a yearning for an external claim of absolute authority to remove personal doubts spawned in the stale air of rhetorical study? When I read Hahn and Chesterton writing on their own conversions to Roman Catholicism I come away with that conclusion. I would quote Chesterton himself: "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." If Hahn or Chesterton felt a lack it was not the denomination that was wanting and corrected by conversion.

The personal relationship that suffers some form of neglect does not birth "better" faith by shifting the blame to the denomination. It does not grow by seeking the comfort of doctrinal security. The peace offered by a claim to absolute denominational authority is counterfeit to the peace that comes from God.
__________
¹ Excluding certain bodies which are generally viewed as cults rather than genuine Christian denominations.