NOBLE ARMY OF "HERETICS"

Bob, you just had 3-in-a-row posts in this thread twice in the last dozen or so posts! Congratulations on your new record!

 

Yes that is true - when they think they can get by with it.

Notice the previous post from one of "their own" historians?

For those still counting -- that would be 3 posts back.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Sorry, I thought maybe you were actually following this thread of discussion. My mistake, I shouldn't have been so presumptous. Thank you for your admission though that the Catholic Church has been consistent in its teaching on "no salvation outside the church."

There quite simply is no way that a sane man can engage in intelligent discussion with you. I tried to use your methods of "scholarship" and oddly enough you condemn and alienate them and equate them to dodging tactics even though you yourself use them. Go figure. You have made yourself clear though, agendas first and facts later. Any dissenting view must be immediately dismissed by Mr. Ryan because he has "RC sources" (whatever that means?). Does this mean you agree with all of Mr. Bokenkotter's conclusions or just the ones that you have selected that align with your anti-Catholic agenda(albeit Bokenkotter is hardly an orthodox Catholic)? For example do you agree with his conclusion in that same chapter that the law making and inquistor Popes provided "order" and "righteousness" against the "feudal lawlessness" of the times and that the modern world is "in debt" to the medieval papacy? Do you follow the "details" to their logical conclusions that the author is making or does your agenda force you to present an unbalanced view of this "Catholic" author?

The critical scholar is still very skeptical of your proof-texting, selective quoting, misquoting, and other strange methods of scholarship. The sane man still has very little reason to take anything you blurt out as serious.

 

Any dissenting view must be immediately dismissed by Mr. Ryan because he has "RC sources" (whatever that means?).

RC members have been "very confused" by this quote of THEIR OWN RC sources. In their great effort to "ignore the points" that their OWN sources are making - they pretend "not to understand" how a non-RC quoting RC sources is able to make arguments that are so devastating to the RC case.

The RC members utterly fail to have the objectivity to quote MY OWN sources to make THEIR case - and seem to lack the ability to even comprehend how I could find THEIR SOURCES making MY point. And it is done repeatedly as has been shown here.

Notice how in this LATEST RC quote - the RC members are simply put to silence responding to the "actual points IN the quotes given"?

Is that "really that hard to get" for an RC member? I would be embarrassed to argue that I could not "understand" the argument being made IN that RC source quote. And YET - the RC members will run to that defense of "innability to comprehend" almost as fast as Harley.

I find that amazing!

In Christ,

Bob

 

This is such a classic rabbit trail dodge of the point THAT Bokenkotter (A BEST SELLING RC historian and Author) made in the quote provided.

The RC member struggles to comprehend HOW a devastating point can be argued from an RC source IF that source is in fact CATHOLIC. The rebuttal he gives is of the form "yes but this historian IS CATHOLIC and you are not so you should not use those POINTS that he makes that actually SUPPORT something you are arguing and REFUTES something I am claiming. After all I AM Catholic"!

My question for Catholics of all stripes on this board is "how can you sit still for that kind of defense"?

Have you no pride "at all"? Do you really think such a defense is going to "reflect well" on your church? Your membership? Your ability to deal with facts?

Come on - please be serious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Does your agenda still disable you from engaging in the discussion Mr. Ryan? Do you still insist upon talking to yourself?

It must hurt to find out how entirely ridiculous and unscholarly your methodologies are. I can assure you that I can proof-text Protestant(although I guess that wouldn't count as "your" authors) authors all day long but I don't waste hours of my days in such a pointless test of non-scholarship.

Bob, the only person that is being fooled right now is yourself and I think everybody can see that.

I feel compelled to call for the attention of a moderator to warn Mr. Ryan to answer the questions that have been asked to him regarding his sources and to stop ignoring the sources that are quoted against his anti-Catholic agendas. This is a forum and not a place to talk to yourself, that is just wasting web space.

[ February 22, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: Justified Saint ]

 

Bob, who were the civil an religious authorities at the time of the Peasant's Wars? I'll give you a hint ... the peasants were condemned by Martin Luther. You would be well advised to spend your time learing about wha you post rather than cut and pasting what you don't understand.

 

That is a pretty bold "claim". I am taking best selling RC Historians and quoting THEM. Are you claiming to be able to find best selling authors and historians in MY church that make YOUR point?

If so - you have been 'hiding your talent under a log' as it were.

I "see" so - when you quote your own sources - in that non-objective non-scholarly way of yours -- that is "an improvement" or a more objective approach that would quote from MY sources to prove YOUR point. (As I quote from YOUR sources to prove MY point).

Care to "elaborate"? Do you really think you can make such a silly claim "stick"?

Are you judging that by the way that you DO see the RC material being used against you?

Hello! JS! Earth calling!

You have not ASKED a question regarding the sources that has anything to do with either QUESTIONing the source OR with disputing the details In the quote from the source!!

Come on JS - this just isn't that hard.

You make it sound like rocket science.

Do you need the source - quoted "again" so that you can actually "address the point" that challenges your doctrines?

Very well.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Lets see if JS (or "any" pro-RC member) will now address "The actual details" in this post - rather than hop from rabbit trail to rabbit trail trying to dance around the point.

--------------------------------------------------

Abridged version, by Dave Armstrong, of "The Church Necessary for Salvation," chapter 10, pp.169-186 of The Spirit of Catholicism, by Karl Adam (Garden City, NY: Doubleday Image, 1924, translated by Dom Justin McCann).

This book (in the editor's opinion, anyway) is one of the very best expositions of Catholicism ever written: very eloquent, biblical, imaginative, appealing, and orthodox.

In it is found the following excellent treatment of the complex and multi-faceted question of how non-Catholic Christians are regarded by the Catholic Church historically

 

In case the salient points of the quote above are too difficult for our pro-RC members to grasp -- I offer this short summary.

#1. The teaching "Outside the Church there is no grace" is specifically applied to the Catholic Church and non-Catholic churches ARE IN that CONTEXT said to be OUTSIDE.

The RCC is the "Sole true Body of Christ" in that context.

#2. While individual non-Catholics are obviously not "named" or "mentioned" in this condemnation of all non-Catholic churches - still those fellowships where they attend - are condemned.

In fact ALL the judgments and condemnations of the Council of Florence DOES apply to the non-Catholic churches without exception.

#3. Dogmatic intolerance is a key foundation piece of this RC teaching. It is in fact a moral DUTY.

RC members - feel free to show how your objections to this - INCLUDES the decisions of the council of Florence and the quotes given above.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:

A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE to our RC bretheren:

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Harley - (in true Harley style) -- then seeks to take the mantle for our RC bretheren (as if he knew something about this point made above) -- and basically takes a whack at Fr. Ken Ryan of Catholic Digest -- asking me why I would be so stupid as to quote the well respected Fr. Ken Ryan.

Note:

Bob, who were the civil an religious authorities at the time of the Peasant's Wars? I'll give you a hint ... the peasants were condemned by Martin Luther. You would be well advised to spend your time learing about wha you post rather than cut and pasting what you don't understand. </font>[/QUOTE]Here is "another catholic for you to bash Harley" -- Catholic historian and best selling author Thomas Bokenkotter "admits" the following --

How sad for Harley - that not a single fact of history supports his wild rantings.

And yet... will this stop Harley? Hardly. Harley never lets fact stand in his way. At least not so far.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mr. Ryan is still convinced that this is a shouting match and that whoever can post the most and emphasize words the most is some how the bearer of truth. This recent attempt of Mr. Ryan's to pass his agenda off as "scholarship" makes the sane man now the laughing man. We will look closely at Mr. Ryan's continuing lack of objectivity and insistence on talking to himself as opposed to engaging in discussion.

First, I would like to recant my statement that I can proof-text your church's authors all day long, I didn't mean it like that. I don't think I could find an SDA scholar that would actually be any useful in pursuit of truth. Besides, it would be difficult to find an SDA who was a bestseller.

Mr. Ryan's quoting and interpretation of Karl Adam's book still misses the mark and I would advise him to follow the thread of discussion that was taking place. The point has been to identify what the Church teaching means when it says "no salvation outside the Church" and I again thank Bob for illustrating the constant teaching of the Church on this issue. If Mr. Ryan has theological objections to this teaching then they are better directed elsewhere and had he been actually following the thread of discussion he would have known this. But, it is worth noting that the Church has to take such a position because the truth matters. On the other hand, truth is spoken in relative terms in most Protestant circles and this is unfortunate. The Catholic takes the words of Jesus seriously when he says that we are to live by every word that comes from his mouth.

Mr. Ryan then makes another attempt at his "sources". Notice that the extent of his "sources" remain a magazine, AP reports, and a book by an unorthodox Catholic which as it is, is titled "A Concise history of the Catholic Church". Mr. Ryan is afraid of serious historical research since that would be just well over his head and also disprove his ridiculous agendas. Notice again that his prime "Catholic" source is by an author who has an agenda and is quite vocal about it. Nearly half of Mr. Bokenkotter's work is devoted to his views of modern and liberal Catholicism.

Next Bob finds himself confused by Harley's objections and resorts to quoting Catholic digest even though it almost entirely is irrelevant

Mr. Luther's involvement and importance in the war is not disputed. He inflamed the peasants to rebellion and once they did he found himself appalled, condemning the rebels and instructed Protestant leaders to:

"...swiftly grasp the sword. For a prince or lord must remember in this case that he is God's minister and the servant of His wrath, to whom the sword is committed for use upon such fellows...If he can punish and does not-even though the punishment consist in the taking of life and the shedding of blood-then he is guilty of all the murder and all the evil which these fellows commit."

The uprising was surely Lutheran in nature and I guess Bob expected the nobility in Germany (both Catholic and Protestant) to simply let the rebels ravage the countryside killing everyone. I am sure this is Bob's idea of freedom. Maybe I agree with Bokenkotter on this one, Lutheranism was being suppressed sinced it demanded civil disobedience and bloody insurrection. Luther's followers had to observe that:

"It were better that every bishop were murdered, every foundation or cloister rooted out, than that one soul should be destroyed, let alone that all souls should be lost for the sake of their worthless trumpery and idolatry...what do they better deserve than a strong uprising which will sweep them from the earth? And we would smile did it happen. All who contribute body, goods, and honor that the rule of bishops may be destroyed are God's dear children and true Christians."

So much for religious tolerance. In fact, in Lutheranism religious intolerance is the "moral duty" since you can't otherwise be a good Christian, according to Luther. Good thing people don't listen to him anymore.

Lastly, Mr. Ryan seems completely ignorant of the fact that Protestants persecuted the Anabaptists just as much as Catholics, but it is ok for Protestants to practice persecution and religious intolerance as Luther has clearly stated. Zwingli's Council of Zurich orderd that Anabaptists "should be laid in the tower," and "left to die and rot."

The facts turn out to be quite against Bob's agenda that he touts as truth. Again, this should be a lesson of how twisted the truth can become when an agenda is placed ahead of the facts. Reason should dictate suspicion whenever sometime tries to push for such sensationalistic garbage as Bob does.

For me I am content to understand that men are not perfect and sinless, they are humans that are afflicted with the conditions of imperfect creatures. I don't need to dwell in the dark ages like Bob and push sensationalistic theories that the Catholic Church killed everyone. The light of truth liberates all from such black legends and, taking Mr. Ryan's advice, I would suggestion that Bob step into the light as well.

 

Indeed. That would require a level of "objectivity" not simply ranting and avoiding the details in the posts given.

By ignoring the salient points of the argument contenting yourself instead with ad hominem attacks - you are sacrificing the entire argument that could have been made for Catholicism. You are =bascially claiming" you have nothing to offer.

Your only defense is to "villanize your own well known best-selling authors and historians" rather than actually ADDRESSING the points that are raised in the discussion.

How sad.

In Christ,

Bob

 

For Bob, the "case for Catholicism" that I "could" have made was an admission from Catholics that our Church is run by Satan and has killed everyone, or something like that. Bob's agenda demands this sensationalistic garbage even though it has no place in scholarship. As long as you try to pass your pseudo-scholarship on to others, Mr. Ryan, I will challenge it and show its numerous errors despite your unwillingness or inability to engage in the discussion.

I can't help it that the SDA has no respected scholars or bestselling ones.

 

Interesting rabbit trail that you choose JS - instead of addressing the point of your OWN RC historian just quoted.

Is it "more convenient" for you to villanize your own Catholic bretheren like Thomas Bokenkotter, Catholic Digest, Fr. Ken Ryan etc - than to simply "deal with facts of history"?

Apparently so.

What is said - is that you "pretend" not to comprehend the fact that my position is using YOUR churches published well read authorities to make MY POINT far surpasses everything you have "imagined to do" in response. Your own post made that clear.

JS said
First, I would like to recant my statement that I can proof-text your church's authors all day long, I didn't mean it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


At least in that you now have "one point of truth" to your credit.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Why do debates with our RC bretheren always wind down like this? They run out of "points" quickly and all that is left is for them to whine about the fact that they must now villanize their OWN RC brethren whose published statements unmask the duplicity of their supposed positions.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob, I am sorry if any of my words have come across as offensive, I promise you that wasn't my intention. I had hoped for insightful discussion on these delicate issues and I realize that I am much to blame for the silly exchange that has resulted.

With that in mind I have nothing more to say on this thread since I honestly feel that you can't address a single objection that I have raised and instead twist my words on trivial points( the "fruits" of an agenda). My conscience would be very against any further additions to this petty bickering. I think this is very unfortunate but I will take my share of the blame. I am still open to this discussion, just let me know when you are ready for it.

 

I would agree that you have not addrssed a single point made by "your OWN" RC authorities on this thread. And your recent posts seem to abandon what little ground you were trying to cover initially.

Have no fear - the RC posts I quoted - are a matter of public record. They are well published document read by all. They remain.

I will be glad to quote them again if there ever should arise ONE RC member with the motivation to "respond to the points raised" by "their OWN RC authorities".

Until then - I fully agree - no point in watching RC members villanize their OWN RC authorities rather than address the points raised.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In skimming back through JS' posts like for any place where he makes even one single point ... I find several posts back...

JS said

This is a defense of why you feel the RCC had to declare no salvation outside the RCC. The point of my post was simply to establish that such was the position taken by the RCC.

I make the point to "show" the basis for the persecution and indeed in the RC's own words "Extermination" of the Godly saints that opposed them.

Furthermore - in posting the RC quotes on the part the Popes played in the inquistion - you have "no response" to the details of your "own" authorities.

That remains unchanged.

In Christ,

Bob