Showing posts with label Roman Catholicism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Roman Catholicism. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
The Author of "Basic Instinct" Repents of a Life-Time of Sins, Addictions, and Debauchery
During the summer of 2001, Eszterhas was diagnosed with throat cancer. His doctors worked to remove 80 per cent of his larynx and told him to immediately quit drinking and smoking. Eszterhas was 56. He lived a wild lifestyle and knew that changing his habits would not be easy.His Conversion
On a day Eszterhas describes as “hellishly hot,” he was walking through a tree-lined neighborhood when he realized he had hit rock-bottom.
Eszterhas described his frame of mind: "I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette.”
He sat on the curb and began to cry. In between fits of crying he began to pray, “Please God, help me.” He hadn’t prayed since he was a child. "I couldn't believe I'd said it. I didn't know why I'd said it. I'd never said it before," he wrote.God reached out His hand
Eszterhas was immediately overwhelmed with peace. His twitching stopped. He no longer trembled. He saw a "shimmering, dazzling, nearly blinding brightness that made me cover my eyes with my hands." Similar to Saul seeing a blinding light on his way to Damascus, Eszterhas had seen the light of Christ.
Eszterhas described the experience as “absolutely overwhelming."
He went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol, to knowing that he could "defeat myself and win."
After years of smut and violence, Joe Eszterhas says he found God one hot summer day in 2001 as he desperately battled to survive throat cancer and his addictions to alcohol and cigarettes.
“I didn’t even really know how to pray,” Eszterhas writes in his upcoming book Crossbearer: A Memoir of Faith. “I didn’t know what to say, so one of the first things I said was ‘I’m sorry. I’ve acted like a colossal A-hole. I’m really, really sorry. I don’t deserve to be forgiven, but please try to forgive me.’”
In their effort to prolong Eszterhas’ life, doctors at the Cleveland Clinic removed 80 percent of his larynx, put a tracheotomy tube in his throat, and told him he must quit drinking and smoking immediately.
While Eszterhas wanted to change his ways, after a lifetime of wild living, the 56-year-old Hungarian native knew it would be a struggle to do so. And it was.
In the summer of 2001, Eszterhas reached a breaking point and for the first time since he was a child, he prayed for God’s help.
"I was going crazy. I was jittery. I twitched. I trembled. I had no patience for anything. … Every single nerve ending was demanding a drink and a cigarette," he writes in Crossbearer.
After his prayer, however, he felt an overwhelming peace.
It was "an absolutely overwhelming experience," he recalled to the Toledo Blade earlier this month.
Eszterhas went from doubting if he could make it through life without tobacco and alcohol to knowing that he could "defeat myself and win."
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Second Sunday of Lent: Saint Gregory Palamas, Apophatic Theology, and the Essence vs. Energies Distinction
Metropolitan Kallistos Ware talks about Saint Gregory Palamas, Apophatic Theology,
and the Essence vs. Energies Distinction
Apophatic Theology
Audio:
St. Gregory Palamas - 2nd Sunday of Lent, by Fr. Thomas Hopko
God: Essence and Energies, by Kevin Allen, Steve McMeans, and Dr. David Bradshaw, professor of Philosophy and the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Kentucky.
Articles:
The Bradshaw Papers, by Dr. David Bradshaw
The Concept of Divine Energies, by Dr. David Bradshaw
The Distinction Between Essence and Energies and its Importance for Theology, by Christos Yannaras
Chapters 68-76 from the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, by St. Gregory Palamas
Notes on the Palamite Controversy, by John S. Romanides
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
If You Think Catholics Are Evil For Not Allowing Their Priests To Marry...
At least they have the decency, common sense, and courtesy to restrict such impossible demands to clergy alone! In Orthodoxy, on the other hand, everybody's canon-fodder, and no one's safe...
P.S.: I can't help thinking about the poor Catholic Priest as some sort of scapegoat or 'sacrificial victim', whose "Vicarious Chastity" and Celibacy is meant to atone for the general half-heartedness, superficiality, and lukewarm-ness of his parishioners... Speaking of being in persona Christi !
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Why Orthodoxy is the True Faith (Extended Version)
These are the three marks of truth, according to Saint Vincent of Lerins, and -among all Christian denominations- only Orthodoxy possesses all three of them, as we shall easily show in the following paragraphs:
Protestantism lacks all three of them, primarily antiquity, the first Protestant denominations dating back to no sooner than the 16th century, or -more precisely- to 1517 AD. Even the so-called Pre-Reformers did not exist prior to the 12th, 14th, or 15th centuries.
Among the remaining four1 ancient and apostolic churches, only Orthodoxy possesses universality, as we shall now demonstrate:
Catholicism is distinguished by its unique, local belief in the Filioque, completely unknown to all other ancient and apostolic churches.
Monophysitism or Miaphysitism is distinguished by its unique, local belief in the one nature of Jesus Christ, completely unknown to all other ancient and apostolic churches.
Nestorianism is distinguished by its unique, local belief in the two persons of Jesus Christ (Jesus the man, and Christ our God), completely unknown to all other ancient and apostolic churches.
Therefore –among all the ancient and apostolic churches– Orthodoxy is the only one that possesses catholicity, being thus "the one holy catholic and apostolic church" of the Nicene creed.
1 I did not take into account artificial hybrids, or unification movements, such as Eastern Catholicism (between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy), Oriental Catholicism (between Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy), and Monothelitism or Monoenergism (the Maronites of Lebanon: between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy), all of which lack both antiquity, as well as universality.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Apostolic Succession: The Pre-Augustinian View
"In Augustine’s mind, therefore, the Donatists were within the apostolic succession. Their bishops had been consecrated by bishops who had been validly consecrated, and because the sacrament confers an indelible grace, they retain valid orders. Further, the Donatist bishops retained the ability to pass on valid orders to those they ordained. A subtle shift has taken place in the concept of apostolic succession. In the earlier patristic view the Church itself, the eucharistic community, was the bearer of the succession. The individual bishop participated in and carried the succession because of his office as head of the apostolic community. For Augustine, each individual bishop carries within himself the indelible mark of apostolic succession and is able in and of himself to pass it on, whether or not he has remained in communion with the Catholic Church. Thus, apostolic succession becomes a matter of episcopal “pedigree,” of who ordained whom, rather than of integration into a community which is itself apostolic. Continuity was disconnected from community. If the validity of the apostolic succession resides in the individual bishop, whether or not he is connected to the community, some means needed to be developed to determine whether or not a particular bishop is within the succession. In the Western Church four criteria were developed to determine the validity of a consecration. Three are exoteric (exterior) criteria. The fourth is esoteric (interior).
(1) Form: The consecration must be done in the context of the eucharistic liturgy to be valid. This emphasizes the connection of the ordination with the community. A consecration done secretly in the bishop’s study, for example, would not be a valid consecration.
(2) Matter: There must be an actual laying on of hands by a bishop during the liturgy. Prayer is not sufficient in and of itself.
(3) Minister: The one who performs the consecration must himself be a validly consecrated bishop within the apostolic succession.
(4) Intention: The intent of the laying on of hands and the prayer within the liturgy must be to ordain or consecrate the person to holy orders. One could conceivably lay hands on someone during the liturgy for prayer for healing, for blessing, or for some other worthy purpose, without intent to ordain. This criterion removes the possibility of someone claiming to be a bishop or priest simply because he had received the “laying on of hands” in the liturgy. The intent must be to ordain.
In modern Western Christian thinking, if these criteria were met in a consecration, a bishop is within the apostolic succession and may ordain others who are within the succession, whether or not he remains in communion with the Church. This has led to the proliferation of numerous groups, usually small, who claim to be in the apostolic succession but are in communion with no one. These bishops are called episcopi vagantes, wandering bishops. The Orthodox Church, following the earlier patristic tradition, holds that apostolic succession is carried by the community. To be within the succession, a bishop must be properly elected by the diocese he is to administrate, be approved by the legitimate governing synod to which he will be accountable, be consecrated by bishops within the Orthodox Church, and remain faithfully in communion with the Orthodox Church. Once a bishop leaves the Church in schism, the Church is not obligated to recognize any consecrations or ordinations he performs. Thus, for the Orthodox, the episcopi vagantes are not within the succession. Nor are the Anglicans or the Roman Catholics necessarily seen as fully in the succession, although in practice the Church has received Catholic priests without requiring them to be ordained in the Orthodox Church. For the Orthodox, to be a part of the eucharistic community of the unbroken One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is to be in the apostolic succession. To separate from it is to be outside the succession, no matter by whom one was ordained."
Fr. Gregory Rogers, Apostolic Succession, pages 32-34.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A Biblical View of Christ's Death
The central tenet of Orthodox sotieriology is the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Every other part of Orthodoxy stems from it. Clark Carlton, noted Orthodox theologian, writes, “In becoming man, Christ assumed human nature in its entirety. Because man is created in the image of the Holy Trinity, each human being sums up within himself the totality of human nature. Thus, Christ as man is united essentially to every man. He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit according to His divinity, and one with each of us according to His humanity.” (Carlton, 105) The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon says likewise, “We all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhood, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood…”
Hence, because of the incarnation, a path is open for union with God through Jesus Christ. Union with Christ’s life is the essence of salvation. In order to make this union possible, the Lord went to the Cross for our sins. Protestants believe that Christ, in going to the Cross, took upon the full wrath of God the Father for the sins of humanity, and provided a perfect righteousness to be imputed to those who place trust in His work on the Cross. Because of this righteousness, those who have placed faith in Him are allowed access into Heaven.
Orthodox Christians, by contrast, believe that Christ’s death had nothing to do with satisfying the wrath of God. Rather, Christ’s death served two main purposes. First, Jesus Christ united Himself with humanity in all of its sufferings, sorrows, and pains. He took upon Himself the natural consequence of man’s sin, that is, suffering, rather than the wrath of God the Father for our sins. Second, through His death, Christ annihilated the bonds of death, and in doing so, destroyed the kingdom of Satan.
Protestants appeal to a variety of texts in attempting to prove penal substitution and imputed righteousness. Perhaps foremost among this texts is St. Paul’s argument in Romans 3:25. He writes, “…God put forward [Christ] as an (hilasterion) by his blood, to be received by faith.” In most Protestant translations, hilasterion is rendered “propitiation.” Propitiation would imply that Christ satisfied the wrath of God the Father on the Cross. However, New Testament scholar Stephen Finlan writes concerning this passage, “The hilasterion is the place where the impurity resulting from the sins of Israel is ritually cleansed once a year…what Paul is saying is that God has put forward Christ as a ‘mercy seat of faith’, not ‘an expiation’ [or] a ‘sacrifice of atonement’” [Finlan, 40] That is to say, Jesus Christ has been made the mercy seat for our sins. He is where Christians are purified. He is the place of our union with God, not the means of satisfying an angry Father.
When St. Paul writes, “In his divine forbearance He passed over former sins”, he is not saying that God withheld punishment until Christ’s sacrifice. He is simply saying that He withheld the true purification until the “fullness of time had come”, as it is written in Galatians 4:4.
Another key text used by Protestants to demonstrate the propitiatory nature of Christ’s sacrifice is 2 Corinthians 5:21. St. Paul writes, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” According to the Protestant interpretation, this passage references the double imputation. The sins of humanity (or the elect) are imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed back. There are significant problems with this interpretation. According to the imputation view, Christ merely had sins imputed to Him, and imputed back righteousness. That is, this is a process extrinsic to us, not something that intrinsically changes us. However, St. Paul appeals in 2 Corinthians 5:20 to “be reconciled to God.” The Corinthians were recognized Christians. St. Paul tells them to be reconciled to God, and then declares that Christ was made sin so that we might become righteousness in Him. That is, by attaining close union with Christ, we actually become righteous over time. Because this is a command to already converted Christians, this reconciliation in Christ must be a process of transformation, not an event. Robert Sungenis, a Roman Catholic scholar, writes “The grammatical construction of 2 Cor. 5:21 does not necessarily treat the subordinate clause (‘in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’) as an actual or definite result of the main clause (‘He made the one not knowing sins to be sins on our behalf’). [The passage shows] a potential result in process rather than a punctiliar event.” [Sungenis, 322-3]
Finlan notes that St. Paul is making reference to a scapegoat ritual in this passage. A scapegoat ritual is where the disease of a community is placed on the scapegoat, and it is destroyed, hence destroying the disease of the community. Seeing sin as a disease, St. Paul teaches that Christ has partaken of our disease on the Cross, and by His death has destroyed the disease. By participating in our pure scapegoat, we may actually become righteous in Him. [Finlan, 42-4] Related to this passage is Romans 8:3, which says that God “condemned sin in the flesh” in the person of Christ. This, like 2 Corinthians 5:21, has nothing to do with penal substitution. The passage says in full that “God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.” Thus, God the Father sends God the Son, in the likeness of men, to partake of our own diseased flesh, so that He may destroy the disease and heal us.
It is written in Romans 5:9 that “Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” The question is first, what is the wrath of God? Second, in what sense are we saved from God’s wrath by Christ’s death. First, the wrath of God is not a wrath of passion, where the Lord has to let off steam against His enemies. When Scripture speaks of God’s wrath, it speaks of it in three ways. St. John Chrysostom spoke of the death of a man, saying “If he was a wicked man, do not mourn but rejoice, for he is no longer able to sin.” That is, God destroys certain men so that they do not fall even further out of communion with Him. Second, God’s wrath is a corrective wrath. God uses certain things as a demonstration so that other men may repent and come into communion with God. Third, God’s wrath is lack of communion with God. It is being in the presence of God while being out of communion with Him.
The Prophet Daniel writes in Daniel 12:2, “Many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” There is one general resurrection of the dead, and some arise in communion with God, eternal life. The others arise out of communion with God, eternal shame and contempt. When Christ speaks of the fires of hell, this is not in a literal sense. Rather, it is representative of the shame one experiences being out of communion with God. Protestant scholars Habermas and Moreland concur, writing “Mental and physical anguish result from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth.” [Habermas, Moreland, 169-70] Clark Carlton explains Hell this way: “God’s immediate presence will be to those who love Him the very bliss of heaven, and to those who hate Him the very fire of hell.” [Carlton, 261]
Understanding that the wrath of God is not an active hatred, but a term representing lack of communion with God, we can understand Romans 5:9. As seen in 2 Corinthians 5:20-21, we become righteous by being reconciled to God through union with Jesus Christ. Reconciliation to God is communion with God, the opposite of hell. Thus, Christ saves us from the wrath of God by bringing us into communion with God through His incarnation. St. Paul confirms this interpretation by bringing reconciliation in view in Romans 5:10, writing, “For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.” Confirming this, St. Paul writes in Colossians 1:21-22 that, “You, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him.” God is reconciling Christians to Him constantly, purifying them.
Another related function of Christ’s death is the destruction of the kingdom of death, ruled by the Evil One. Carlton writes, “By pouring out His most pure Blood upon the Cross, Christ not only blotted out the record of man’s sin, but overcame the power by which sin holds mankind captive.” [Carlton, 142] It is written in Hebrews 2:14 that “Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil.”
David DeSilva, noted New Testament scholar, writes concerning this passage, “Since the many children were subject to mortality, the Son also became subject to mortality in order to confront and defeat, through His own death, the devil who had used death as a tool for enslaving the human race.” [DeSilva, 118]
In his first sermon, St. Peter preaches the essence of Christianity. He does not preach about imputed righteousness, Sola Fide, or penal substitution. Rather, speaking of Christ’s Cross, He cogently identifies the reason for the Lord’s death. He says in Acts 2:23-24 that “This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.” Death cannot hold the very author of life. Because of this, when it attempted to hold God, God took it and destroyed it, bringing about His own resurrection. St. Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:21-23, “For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.”
Christ, through His death, has broken death itself. Because He has destroyed death, the kingdom of Satan has fallen and the Church is advancing. The purpose of the Lord’s death has nothing to do with satisfying the wrath of God or shuffling righteousness files in a legal file cabinet. Christ, through His incarnation, death, and resurrection, crushes death, swings open the gates of eternal life, and provides us a means of accessing this life.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Propitiation or Expiation in Saint Paul
"All have sinned, all come short of the glory of God, but they are justified for nothing by His grace through the ransom provided in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as the means of propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith". (Romans 3:23-25).The Term "Propitiation"
The Greek word (hilasterion) is derived from a verb which in pagan writers and inscriptions has two meanings:
(a) "to placate" a man or a god;
(b) "to expiate" a sin, i.e. to perform an act (such as the payment of a fine or the offering of a sacrifice) by which its guilt is annulled.
The former meaning is overwhelmingly the more common. In the Septuagint, on the other hand, the meaning (a) is practically unknown where God is the object, and the meaning (b) is found in scores of passages. Thus the biblical sense of the verb is "to perform an act whereby guilt or defilement is removed." The idea underlying it is characteristic of primitive religion. The ancients felt that if a taboo was infringed, the person or thing involved became unclean, defiled or profane. The condition of defilement might be removed by the performance of the appropriate act: it might be washing with water, or sprinkling with blood, or simply the forfeiture of some valuable object to the deity concerned with the taboo. Such acts were felt to have the value, so to speak, of a disinfectant. Thus in the Old Testament a whole range of ritual actions are prescribed for disinfecting the priest, the altar, or the people from various forms of defilement, ritual or moral. Our versions in such cases use the phrase "to make propitiation"; but the more proper translation would be "to make expiation". This meaning holds good wherever the subject of the verb is a man. But, as religious thought advanced, it came to be felt that, where the defilement was moral, God alone could annul it; and so the same verb is used with God as subject in the sense "to forgive".1
In accordance with biblical usage, therefore, the substantive (hilasterion) would mean, not propitiation, but "a means by which guilt is annulled": if a man is the agent, the meaning would be "a means of expiation"; if God, "a means by which sin is forgiven". Biblical usage is determinative for Paul. The rendering "propitiation" is therefore misleading, for it suggests the placating of an angry God, and although this would be in accord with pagan usage, it is foreign to biblical usage. In the present passage it is God who puts forward the means whereby the guilt of sin is removed, by sending Christ. The sending of Christ, therefore, is the divine method of forgiveness. This brings the teaching of the present passage into exact harmony with that of v. 8-9.
1 The full evidence for all this is given in my book, The Bible and the Greeks, pp. 82-95, where I have examined, I believe, every occurrence of the verb in the Septuagint.
Friday, November 5, 2010
The Trouble With Galileo Galilei
Yes, the guys trying to burn him at the stake were Catholic as well, I get that: but, -you see-, just because Sicilian mobsters "murderize " each other doesn't make either one of them less Italian than the other...
Saturday, October 16, 2010
A Sixth Century Roman Deacon on the Filioque
For the Father indeed begets, and begotten He is not; and from someone else He is not, as from Him others are; the Son truly is begotten, and nothing co-eternal does He beget ; and the Holy Spirit from the Father proceeds, and nothing co-eternal proceeds from or is begotten by Him. Some of the very ancient to these properties have also added, that just as the Spirit together with the Father does not eternally beget the Son, neither does the Spirit proceed from the Son as from the Father. To tell you the truth, that indeed the Spirit does not eternally beget the Son, this I confess ( for neither do we speak of two Fathers ); but whether He truly proceeds from the Son in the same manner as from the Father, this I haven't yet perfectly figured it out.
Rusticus, Disputation Against the Acephali, page 36 (1237).
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Orthodox Gospel
1 Corinthians 1:22-24
22 For the Jews require a sign, the Greeks seek after wisdom, and Western Christians after gaps: 23 But we preach Christ crucified: unto the Jews, a stumbling-block; unto the Greeks, foolishness; and unto Westerners, a mystery and a paradox; 24 But unto them that are called, whether Jews or Greeks or Occidentals, Christ: the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Medieval Mongolian Papacy
In the letter which Mangu Khan sent to the king of France through Ruysbroeck, we find the highest profession of faith of the Mongolian nation: This is the order of the eternal God: There is but one everlasting God in heaven, and there shall be but one ruler on earth: Genghis Khan, the son of God. And Genghis Khan's seal bore the following inscription: One God in heaven, and the Khan on earth: The seal of the ruler of the earth.
Mircea Eliade, The Morphology of Religions. Prolegomena,
published by The Literary Journal, Bucharest, 1993.
published by The Literary Journal, Bucharest, 1993.
Monday, September 6, 2010
The Atonement
Articles
Christ's Death: A Rescue Mission, Not a Payment for Sins, by Frederica Mathewes Green.
The Sacrifice of Christ as "Expiation", by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon.
Audio
God So Loved The World, by Frederica Mathewes Green, Fr. Ted Stylianopoulos, and Presbytera Faye.
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross, by Kevin Allen, Steve McMeans, and Dr. Joel B. Green, Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Asbury Theological Seminary (Wesleyan-Methodist).
Salvation in Christ - The Orthodox Approach, a lecture by Metropolitan KALLISTOS Ware.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 10, by Matthew Gallatin.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 11, by Matthew Gallatin.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 12, by Matthew Gallatin.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 13, by Matthew Gallatin.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 14, by Matthew Gallatin.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 15, by Matthew Gallatin.
Sola Scriptura And Philosophical Christianity - Part 16, by Matthew Gallatin.
The Love of God and the Passion of Christ, by Fr. Patrick Henry Reardon.
The Wrath Of God, by Fr. Thomas Hopko.
Video
Salvation in Christ - The Orthodox Approach, a lecture by Metropolitan KALLISTOS Ware.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
The Fallacy Of Believing That Christ Died On The Cross To Appease The Father's Wrath
Matthew 5:43 ¶Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
A Rose, By Any Other Name...
Unlike their sinful Protestant and Orthodox counterparts, Catholics don't get a divorce... they get an annulment.
Unlike their unregenerate and totally-depraved Catholic and Orthodox counterparts, Protestants don't sin... they "backslide ".
Psalm 141:4 Incline not my heart to evil words; to make excuses in sins.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
The Fool Hath Said In His Heart: "There Is No Pope !"
Saint Peter became a rock of faith in Matthew 16:18... and a stone of stumbling in Matthew 16:23. What changed? The words coming out of his mouth. In the former, he confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God... whereas in the latter, he committed a blunder, albeit a well-meaning one. This shows us that the Pope's quality of being a true rock of faith is conditioned, and not unconditioned, as official Roman Catholic teaching upholds.
The dogma of Papal Infallibility bears thus an uncanny resemblance to the Calvinist doctrines of Unconditional Election and Perseverance of the Saints : only that in this case, it's Unconditional Infallibility and Perseverance of the Pope.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Why the Filioque is False
she was neither begotten by him 1, nor generated by him and his son.
1 since Catholic Scholasticism maintains that if the Spirit were from the Father alone (as the Son also is), there would be no difference between the former's procession and the latter's generation.
Link.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Papacy Debate
I'm involved in a formal debate about the Papacy with Scott Windsor. You can find it on Scott's web site over here. He refers to me there by my first name: Chris, whereas here I am posting under my second name, and patron saint name: John. We've both done opening statements, and 2 rebuttals, and are soon to post 3rd rebuttals.
The thesis of the debate is "Is the modern role of the papacy a legitimate development from the Early Church?".
Unusually, we have both agreed to publish each phase of the debate simultaneously. After the 3rd rebuttals, we will have an IRC chat session which will be posted online.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LORD JESUS CHRIST,
SON OF GOD,
HAVE MERCY ON US,
THE SINNERS.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments