Yes there is! :sozo2:
ECT Ad Hominem is absolutely wrong in plain language
- Thread starter Lion.of.Judah
- Start date
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
What's to debate? You challenged me:
But it's irrelevant what any individual "catholic theologians" think about matters of Christian faith and morals, if ever they differ from authorized Catholic teaching of the matter, and that authorized Catholicism is taught in the 'Catechism of the Catholic Church,' which is addressed to all the world's authentic bishops, and is authorized by the papacy. It is their 'teachers edition' for expressing the Catholic faith authoritatively, and if ever any individual 'catholic theologian' diverges from it, then those teachings are objectively incorrect and not authentically Catholic. iow made up.
And here's the authorized Catholic teaching that's pertinent:
'Venial sin' means that while the thing is an imperfection objectively, its gravity is so slight that it's practically not a sin at all, although Catholicism does believe there is real value in confessing our venial sins, as it assists us in deepening our faith.The Papacy /Holy See /Peter's Roman pastorate said:
A lie that is venial would mean an example of the colloquial 'white lie.'
'Culpability' goes hand-in-hand with the notion of 'full knowledge and deliberate consent,' as for a counter example of a 'white lie,' which can be done with deliberate consent but is only slightly serious, if at all, killing a person, which is objectively very grave, is only truly murder, when the killing was of an innocent person, and done with malice aforethought. With full knowledge and deliberate consent, iow.The Papacy /Holy See /Peter's Roman pastorate said:
So any untruth that we may utter, without full knowledge that it's a lie, or without complete freedom (for example, if we are deceived or coerced into lying), imputes no guilt to us for that lie, regardless of the harm it may go on to cause. And 'white lies,' to repeat, are 'venial' because of the very slight to non existent gravity of them, regardless of any deliberate consent in telling them.
This is a reasoning given for why lying is objectively immoral. This is independent of culpability imputed to the liar.The Papacy /Holy See /Peter's Roman pastorate said:
Again note the notion of 'the damage inflicted' being material in the determination of a lie's gravity.The Papacy /Holy See /Peter's Roman pastorate said:
So your very challenge was invalid right out of the gate. There's no debate, unless you want to try again. I was just informing you that your own work on the matter of lying, comports very closely with the authorized Catholic teaching on the same matter.
It is unfortunate that you take your moral education from man rather than God.
I Kings 22:19 Then Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by, on His right hand and on His left. 20 And the Lord said, ‘Who will persuade Ahab to go up, that he may fall at Ramoth Gilead?’ So one spoke in this manner, and another spoke in that manner. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, and said, ‘I will persuade him.’ 22 The Lord said to him, ‘In what way?’ So he said, ‘I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘You shall persuade him, and also prevail. Go out and do so.’ 23 Therefore look! The Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these prophets of yours, and the Lord has declared disaster against you.”
Here was have God sending a lying spirit trying to convince a king to send his army in to die at Ramoth Gilead!
So, how much damage was done here; to what extent is God "to be condemned" for this "profanation of speech" and what sort of sin would your extrabiblical holy book say God was "culpable" of?
Clete
glorydaz
Well-known member
Hooray! Someone willing to stand up and speak against this horrible doctrine. :thumb:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Then I suppose that it is equally unfortunate that you think I'm doing that.
"You shall not put the LORD your God to the test," or something.
You're the one citing Catholic dogma.
Nice dodge, hyporcrite.
You want to congratualate me for having a position that is in agreement with Catholicism and then when I do nothing at all but quote a bible passage that you had no idea existed and apply your own verbatim reasoning to it, you suddenly have nothing to say. I can see now why you don't bother to debate anything.
Your Catholicism is blasphemy is so many ways it's impossible to count. Pathetic.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yep, the teaching of men....mere men. This is a big problem for the Catholics. We're watching it play out before our eyes.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Unfortunately, most Catholics don't realize that's what they're doing. They have been indoctrinated. :sigh:
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Which means I'm citing the Word of God, which is transmitted to us faithfully by the holders of the office that the Apostles instituted precisely for this purpose. (I am taking your "dogma" to mean authentic Catholic teaching, and not as narrow as the word "dogma" means within Catholicism; I'm just guessing that it's what you meant. Not all authentic Catholic teaching is technically "dogma," iow.)
The Apostles instituted the office of Bishop, and then they poured their word-of-mouth teaching into every one of them, every time they met with a bishop or a prospective bishop the Apostles Taught them (cf. 2Ti2:2KJV), so that the bishops could teach; so that the bishops could do the same thing that the Apostles did to them, those first generation bishops, consecrated by the imposition of the Apostles' very own hands upon them personally, skin-to-skin.
The skin-to-skin (sacrament of Holy Orders in Catholicism fyi) has continued to this day in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and in those other tiny minority Christian traditions that can be validly held to trace their skin-to-skin lineage all the way back to Acts 2 or at latest to within the Apostolic era, when the Apostles walked the earth (I want to say the Copts? is one example of these, perhaps the Oriental Orthodox Church also?).
And of these, only one of the ancientest Christian traditions does not even need to explain in what way they can justifiably claim to be the Church that Jesus of Nazareth talked about in Matthew 16:18 KJV, wrt especially that they are built upon Peter. The others need to explain it persuasively because the Catholics are the only ones who have a powerful offensive wrt Matthew 16:18 KJV; each other ancient Christian tradition must overcome the weight of this Catholic offensive. Orthodoxy explains that Peter's Roman pastorate has been in a state of rebellious schism against the other patriarchs of other historical Apostolic Sees, including Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria among them.
lain: Meanwhile there's you people. Protestants. Those with no bishops. You're sheep outside the fold. You spew wrong. You're wrong inherently, wrong is integral to your theology, and it's just that you're an insurrectionist, a rebel. Not by nature, but by choice.It doesn't matter to you people that you're operating way outside the known bounds of how the Church operated during the end of the Apostolic era, and in each subsequent generation, and in each century subsequent to the Apostolic era, where the whole Body of Christ was unified, and believed and practiced apparently uniformly, and the structural member in this was the bishops, the Church organized around the bishops, the bishops were like the trees scattered throughout the Christian forest, with all the non ordained faithful filling in the space between all the trees---the Church operated this way from the beginning, and for many centuries.
Bishops were targeted in the scary amount of pagan perpetrated hunts, tortures, and kills against the Church, in greater proportion than were the non ordained faithful. It was because of their office that they were targeted more frequently, the bishops were supposed to stand out in some way from the rest of the Church, and the pagans saw that, and targeted them more frequently, proportionally, than they did the rest of the Church.
You don't understand because you can't, not in your rebellion, what a gift the bishops have given to us, virtually in most ways free of charge, in St. John Paul II's catechism. Drop the weapon, just for moment. Taste and see.
None of you people care about that. You're living a quote-unquote "Christian life" that never existed before the Reformation, where you just study your Bible and make up whatever theology is your best guess based upon your study. The study is not the wrong thing, the wrong thing is not submitting to your bishops. Study within the bounds of historic Christianity is nothing but good.
Well of course I'm a hypocrite, but what does that have to do with you citing an event that occurred under the Old Covenant, and demanding of me to explain what it has to do with the New Covenant? The New Covenant is a new dispensation, you know, being a Dispensationalist yourself. Why would this dispensation need to pass muster in a prior dispensation, that has been redacted and fulfilled and replaced by the dedication of this dispensation, the New Covenant?
And to repeat, Of course I'm a hypocrite. That's like calling me a human being. I'm a sinner, I'm a hypocrite, and so are all the bishops. That's unchanged from the beginning, when even Peter himself was proven to be a hypocrite. It didn't nullify his office, and it doesn't nullify the office today.
Recall that Christ instructed to heed those sitting in the chair of Moses, not because they were hypocrites, not practicing what they preached, but even though they were hypocrites. There's no reason to think that in the New Covenant dispensation, that suddenly the authorized teachers (the bishops) must never be hypocrites, because that would mean that the office would have crumbled under Peter himself, and that today's office of Bishop is utterly corrupted and in a permanent state of irredeemable and irrecoverable ruin.
That's an extreme view, yours.
I wasn't congratulating you, I was informing you of the pattern. What you teach, and what Catholicism teaches, in the matter of lying, is distinctively similar. It was just and it was only an fyi. It is interesting that both you and all the Catholic bishops, an office you hold to be completely corrupt, teach distinctively similar things, in any matter, to me. I think it should be interesting to you too, and not taken to be offensive, but interesting and thought provoking.
And my response to your scripture quote is above.
Nope, you made that up.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Nope, the teaching of the Apostles. Bishops don't teach anything as authentically Apostolic, unless the Apostles taught it, or someone other than the Apostles taught it and the Apostles approved (such as e.g. the Gospels of Mark and Luke, written by non Apostles, but nonetheless approved by the Apostles).
The Apostles are the only authentic teachers of the Christian faith, and the Apostles instituted the office of Bishop in order to preserve their own authentic Apostolic teaching. Some of the teaching was committed to writing, and is now the New Testament. The bishops aren't tasked with interpreting the Scripture, but in transmitting Apostolic teaching.
The words of the Apostles are the Word of God.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
It's OK to be indoctrinated by those tasked by the Apostles to indoctrinate.
Wow.Which means I'm citing the Word of God, which is transmitted to us faithfully by the holders of the office that the Apostles instituted precisely for this purpose. (I am taking your "dogma" to mean authentic Catholic teaching, and not as narrow as the word "dogma" means within Catholicism; I'm just guessing that it's what you meant. Not all authentic Catholic teaching is technically "dogma," iow.)
The Apostles instituted the office of Bishop, and then they poured their word-of-mouth teaching into every one of them, every time they met with a bishop or a prospective bishop the Apostles Taught them (cf. 2Ti2:2KJV), so that the bishops could teach; so that the bishops could do the same thing that the Apostles did to them, those first generation bishops, consecrated by the imposition of the Apostles' very own hands upon them personally, skin-to-skin.
The skin-to-skin (sacrament of Holy Orders in Catholicism fyi) has continued to this day in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and in those other tiny minority Christian traditions that can be validly held to trace their skin-to-skin lineage all the way back to Acts 2 or at latest to within the Apostolic era, when the Apostles walked the earth (I want to say the Copts? is one example of these, perhaps the Oriental Orthodox Church also?).
And of these, only one of the ancientest Christian traditions does not even need to explain in what way they can justifiably claim to be the Church that Jesus of Nazareth talked about in Matthew 16:18 KJV, wrt especially that they are built upon Peter. The others need to explain it persuasively because the Catholics are the only ones who have a powerful offensive wrt Matthew 16:18 KJV; each other ancient Christian tradition must overcome the weight of this Catholic offensive. Orthodoxy explains that Peter's Roman pastorate has been in a state of rebellious schism against the other patriarchs of other historical Apostolic Sees, including Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria among them.
It doesn't matter to you people that you're operating way outside the known bounds of how the Church operated during the end of the Apostolic era, and in each subsequent generation, and in each century subsequent to the Apostolic era, where the whole Body of Christ was unified, and believed and practiced apparently uniformly, and the structural member in this was the bishops, the Church organized around the bishops, the bishops were like the trees scattered throughout the Christian forest, with all the non ordained faithful filling in the space between all the trees---the Church operated this way from the beginning, and for many centuries.
Bishops were targeted in the scary amount of pagan perpetrated hunts, tortures, and kills against the Church, in greater proportion than were the non ordained faithful. It was because of their office that they were targeted more frequently, the bishops were supposed to stand out in some way from the rest of the Church, and the pagans saw that, and targeted them more frequently, proportionally, than they did the rest of the Church.
You don't understand because you can't, not in your rebellion, what a gift the bishops have given to us, virtually in most ways free of charge, in St. John Paul II's catechism. Drop the weapon, just for moment. Taste and see.
None of you people care about that. You're living a quote-unquote "Christian life" that never existed before the Reformation, where you just study your Bible and make up whatever theology is your best guess based upon your study. The study is not the wrong thing, the wrong thing is not submitting to your bishops. Study within the bounds of historic Christianity is nothing but good.
Well of course I'm a hypocrite, but what does that have to do with you citing an event that occurred under the Old Covenant, and demanding of me to explain what it has to do with the New Covenant? The New Covenant is a new dispensation, you know, being a Dispensationalist yourself. Why would this dispensation need to pass muster in a prior dispensation, that has been redacted and fulfilled and replaced by the dedication of this dispensation, the New Covenant?
And to repeat, Of course I'm a hypocrite. That's like calling me a human being. I'm a sinner, I'm a hypocrite, and so are all the bishops. That's unchanged from the beginning, when even Peter himself was proven to be a hypocrite. It didn't nullify his office, and it doesn't nullify the office today.
Recall that Christ instructed to heed those sitting in the chair of Moses, not because they were hypocrites, not practicing what they preached, but even though they were hypocrites. There's no reason to think that in the New Covenant dispensation, that suddenly the authorized teachers (the bishops) must never be hypocrites, because that would mean that the office would have crumbled under Peter himself, and that today's office of Bishop is utterly corrupted and in a permanent state of irredeemable and irrecoverable ruin.
That's an extreme view, yours.
I wasn't congratulating you, I was informing you of the pattern. What you teach, and what Catholicism teaches, in the matter of lying, is distinctively similar. It was just and it was only an fyi. It is interesting that both you and all the Catholic bishops, an office you hold to be completely corrupt, teach distinctively similar things, in any matter, to me. I think it should be interesting to you too, and not taken to be offensive, but interesting and thought provoking.
And my response to your scripture quote is above.
Nope, you made that up.
Hypocricy is to be expected of you. Good to know!
Welcome to my ignore list.
Blasphemy.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
So you're the one human being who's not a hypocrite. Good to know, I knew they were around here somewhere.
And, Nice to be here!
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Vs. 1st Thessalonians 2:13 KJV
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Is the following authentic teaching of the church at Rome concerning Mary?:
"It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin" (MAGNAE DEI MATRIS, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on September 8, 1892).
According to Rome both Mary and the Lord Jesus have enough grace to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world.
That contradicts what Peter said in the following passage:
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:10-12).
Rome also teaches the following:
"As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race" (The Church Teaches, Documents of the Church in English Translation, by the Jesuit fathers of St. Mary's College, copyright 1973 Tan Books and Publishers Inc., bearing the IMPRIMI POTEST, NIHIL OBSTAT, AND IMPRIMATUR of the Catholic Church, pages 210-211).
This teaching is plure blasphemy and if you can believe this teaching your spiritual I.Q. is ZERO!
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
The operative words there "in Christ." Apart from Christ, Mary is nothing.
Because she is His mother.
Thanks.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You over look what else is said: "n Christ and in the Blessed Virgin":
"It is a great thing in any saint to have grace sufficient for the salvation of many souls; but to have enough to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world is the greatest of all; and this is found in Christ and in the Blessed Virgin" (MAGNAE DEI MATRIS, Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII promulgated on September 8, 1892).
It says that both Mary and Christ have enough grace to suffice for the salvation of everybody in the world. "Grace" comes to believers through the redemption of the Lord Jesus (Ro.3.24) because believers are redeemed by His blood (1 Pet.1:18-19). So Mary has nothing to do with anyone receiving salvation.
That is not what Rome says:
"As she suffered and almost died together with her suffering and dying Son, so she surrendered her mother's rights over her Son for the salvation of the human race. And to satisfy the justice of God she sacrificed her Son, as well as she could, so that it may justly be said that she together with Christ has redeemed the human race."
Rome says that it is because Mary sacrificed her son that it can be said that both her and Christ redeemed the human race. And that contradicts what Peter said here:
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:10-12).
You evidently believe these blasphemous teachings of Rome and at the same time don't believe what Peter said.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Well Jerry, you're going to believe whatever you want to believe. If TOL's taught us nothing else, it's that.
For Catholicism's part, there is nothing in what we believe about Mary the mother of our Lord, that takes away from all glory and honor justly due her Son; in fact, it all magnifies His glory.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
So the fact that Rome teaches that both Mary and Christ redeemed the world takes nothing away from the glory of the Lord Jesus despite that fact that Peter said that these is no name besides the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whereby people are saved:
"Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:10-12).
Peter said there is salvation in no one else but Jesus Christ but Rome teaches that both Mary and Jesus Christ redeemed the world. The honor belongs only to the Lord Jesus but Rome teaches otherwise.
According to Rome the honor also belongs to the queen of heaven.