04-06-2005 05:57									#271
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Tsk, tsk. 'Tisn't as bad as that. We're nothing like the TV preachers, for the most part.

True, but theologically, the protestant values (i.e. "either you say you worship Jesus and go straight to heaven, or you don't and you go straight to hell") go completely against my values, and they go completely against what I think a benevolent God stands for.

Besides, the literal worship of the Bible is just absurd, considering that the Bible has been written (and translated) by faillible humans. In particular, the religious worship of the Old Testament srikes me as especially strange, considering that the OT is the mythology from which Christianty radically broke off.

If I believed in God, the Catholic dogma would strike much close to my home than the protestant one.

	05-06-2005 08:23									#272
	Put an end to popups!

Sorry for the delay in my reply Straybow.

quote: So you are saying that vernacular mass is sin? No, the "caution" was more due to political maneuvering rather than any concern that the gospel should be known and believed.

And the vernacular mass had nothing to do with nationalism or politics?

I do not say that the vernacular mass is sin, rather that the sin lies in other errors promulgated by Luther.

quote: But that's what you said, that the reluctance of the RCC and late adoption of the vernacular had "more success" than Luther...

No, I was obviously not clear enough. The adoption of the mass in the vernacular will be more successful than what happened under Luther in the Lutheran church, simply because of the scope of Christianity involved.

quote: Yes, the whole Latin Mass was error. Origen and Jerome translated the NT and other works into Latin. This was a good thing. Then Bishop Ulfilas devised the Gothic alphabet for his translation of the gospels into Gothic (East Germanic) and later Germanic tongues were rendered in a modified Latin alphabet. The driving force was to present the gospel in the vernacular wherever it spread. Then Rome decided it couldn't exert control if everybody was using their own vernacular and forced converts to attend Latin Mass. What did this accomplish? Nothing but the ignorance of the masses.

And what would the translation of the mass accomplish in an age where Latin was the lingua franca, and was understood by anyone who was educated in those times? The ignorance of the masses had very little to do with the Latin mass.

quote: No, you still don't get it. You are still subscribing to this fiction that the Church is somehow immune and infallible no matter what corruption exists in the "human element." The Church is the human element. They cannot be separated. The Godhead is the only element that is not fully human with all the flaws and foibles that engenders. To believe otherwise is deception of the highest order, comparable to the fall of Lucifer.

No, the church has a human nature and a divine nature. The divine nature cannot be corrupted, even as the human nature corrupts, in the same way that the Lord's supper remains regardless of the priest who performs the service.

My question to you, is that if there is no divine nature in the church, why do you go? If there is solely human corruption, then the church cannot give you anything which you do not already have in yourself.

quote: I can't imagine what definition of grace you are applying here. Certainly not Luther's.

quote: First, "Justification is a legal act of God..." By this I mean that justification is a legal declaration, not a surgical operation. We will see more about this in a little bit. For now it is enough to know that justification does not mean that God makes you righteous, but that God declares you to be righteous. While a surgeon operates inwardly on you to make you better, a judge simply declares what your status is before the law. He doesn't make you righteous, but if you are righteous he declares you accordingly. Likewise, justification is not an act of God in you, but an act of God about you. It is a change of our standing before God, not a change of our character.

quote: But what if someone says "I am detestable in God's sight. I'm so rotten and miserable in my sin that God abhors me"? I even have good news for this person: Christ will clothe you in His righteousness and cover your shame.

This is from www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/just2.html

Which is a defense of Justification by faith. Given time, I am sure I could find a defense of Luther from a direct citation, but this will have to do for now. Suffice to say, Luther says that Justification is a legal act, it cannot change your inner self, it cannot make you holy. This is the problem that I have with Luther's teachings on Justification.

quote: Most churches posit their teachings as interpretations of scriptures, not bodies of work elevated to equality with and de facto functionally superior to scripture.

Every church has doctrine that must be accepted in order to call oneself a member, even if this doctrine is limited to the declaration that Christ is the son of God.

	05-06-2005 08:39									#273
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No, that isn't authority. Anyone inside or outside the church can point out the obvious. The RC laity has no authority to suspend or remove a RC priest for sin or error. The inherent error is in the RC doctrine creating Priests as an overclass, relegating the laymen to second class citizens in the kingdom of heaven.

"And the greatest among you must be servant to all". RC doctrine affirms the principle that the priests are to serve, and not be served.

You did nothing to address my point that a shepherd without a flock is hardly a shepherd. The laity has authority beyond that of mere discipline, they do not need to be able to suspend or remove a priest in order to have authority.

quote: I answered in the paragraph you quoted next: The need for tradition (small "t") is that scripture is necessarily terse. For example, the authors of the Gospels cannot be expected to explain the cultural basis for certain statements and practices reflected in their testimonies. Only as new cultures are exposed to or emerge from the old can comparisons arise.

First of all, is there a cultural base to the statements and practices in the Gospel? I thought most who wished to restore the primitive church deny that these statements have a cultural base and rather ought to be followed by congregations today.

Secondly, you leave out the interpretation of the church of certain doctrine that has become the tradition of the church on these matters. I suspect this is because you reject the notion that tradition can have any influence on the doctrinal issues inside Christianity. Given the history of Christianity, the doctrinal issues seem a central part of the tradition of the church to clarify things that have not been explicitly stated in the Gospels.

One of these doctrines is the Trinity. How does it make sense to ascribe the formulations of the Trinity to the Apostles, given that they were declared by the church as tradition?

quote: For example, without understanding post-Exile Jewish tradition of the Seder you can't properly understand or interpret the things Jesus says and does in the Last Supper.

Agreed. However, I should say that the first time I ever heard the term Seder is in the Catholic church.

quote: Had the Roman and Greek church stuck to Jewish tradition as both Jesus and the Apostles taught of Christianity instead of supplanting it with western philosophy there would be neither these errors nor these disputes. If God wanted to base His church on western philosophy Jesus would have been born a gentile. God chose the Jews, shaped their history and culture, and used them as His intrument.

Yet we are all ingrafted branches. If God wanted to base his church solely on Jewish tradition than all Christians would be circumcised. They are not, and so we cannot rest solely upon Jewish tradition in order to understand Christianity. Both are together, Jews and Gentiles alike in Christ.

quote: It does, but in general human understanding fares poorly in crossing cultural borders. True tradition explains the things that scripture assumes the reader understands. False tradition introduces things the scriptures never assumed nor permitted.

Yet the Trinity seems a strange thing to infer from a simple reading of the Gospels. In knowing the Trinity, the Gospels make much more sense, which to me is the sign of proper tradition, in drawing out truth from Scripture.

As for human understanding not crossing cultural boundaries, I am unsure of what to say of that. Culture is the family that one grows up in, and if the family practices, then the tradition of the church will be part of the culture of that family, regardless of where and how they live.

	05-06-2005 08:54									#274
	Got spare money?

quote: Not at all. Couples have used the "rhythm method" from the beginning. Only recently have materials been available to make workable prophylactics (latex condoms, hormone pills, etc) and thus there is no lengthy history of modern birth control.

Which begs the question. Does not the Catholic church approve of natural family planning?

ALso, in saying there is no lengthy history you admit that the acceptance of artificial contraception is an innovation to Christianity, without foundation in either scripture or tradition.

The difference between the two of them, is that there is no difference between abstaining from sex and from natural family planning. The two are of the same nature, since scripture affirms that the couple are not to deny each other except for a short time, according to mutual agreement! This is not true of artificial contraception which seeks to allow the union of the couple, without the consequences therein. You are always witholding yourself from your wife.

quote: Yes, I concur that the industrialized nations have foolishly constricted their birth rates, and that there are economic consequences to follow. But does not contradict the fact that birth control is a matter of conscience!

My point is that it is alien to the Christian conception of the family, and we see this through the withered fruits of contraception.

	05-06-2005 09:09									#275
	Put an end to popups!

quote: They are not absolute, neither are they obsolete. They are attempts to explain some important things in the vernacular. Another explanation may, in fact, be superior to them. In their day there were many who disagreed with them, and their establishment was a political action rather than some mythical Triumph Of Truth Over Heresy.

Actually, if you read about the history behind them, political action cannot be ascribed solely to the establishment of the creeds, often political action opposed the creeds in the form in which we now know them.

quote: Absolutely incorrect! The work must be repeated in each individual. That is the nature of Christianity. You must become mature in Christ. I must become mature in Christ. Reciting creeds doesn't cut it.

Becoming mature doesn't mean repeating the work that has already been done, but in understanding what has been done. Reciting creeds is different than understanding, and I agree, but it is not necessary to throw away everything that has been done by mature Christians that have gone before you.

As for my wisdom, I have so much to learn I am sure that I will still be learning for all the time that I am alive. If what I say makes some sense to others than that is all that matters.

	05-06-2005 09:23									#276
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: That RC teaching is error. Paul instructs us that the resurrection is yet to come, that those who have died will not rise until after those who are still alive have been transformed at Christ's Appearing. Christ the firstfruits, then we who remain, then the dead in Christ. Now, whether Luther said the dead in Christ are unconscious in the grave I neither know nor care. The scriptures are available for all to study, some rightly and some less so.

Yet does not scripture also say that some of the dead are already in heaven? The question I had the hardest time working out is Moses. He died on earth, and yet, we see him on the Mount of the Transfiguration. If he is dead, how can he be with Elijah?

quote: Nice try, Ben. Mary is treated as a junior goddess, able to understand us better than Jesus, able to present our pleas to Jesus with her motherly influence better than we can,

First off, where does RC doctrine say that Mary can understand us better than Christ? Secondly, just because Mary understands Christ better than we understand him, is not the same as saying that she understands us better than Christ.

quote: Hide behind Mary's skirt if you like, but it will hinder you from seeing and hearing from God and open yourself to deception.

Perhaps, but I don't consider defending Catholic teachings as hiding behind her skirt. Why are you so afraid of Mary?

	08-06-2005 05:09									#277
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi And the vernacular mass had nothing to do with nationalism or politics? I do not say that the vernacular mass is sin, rather that the sin lies in other errors promulgated by Luther.

Politics is reality. The leaders make choices for their own reasons, and some of those choices will benefit God and the believers while other choices will not. Translation of the scriptures and liturgy into the vernacular is of the first group, beyond all doubt. Even Rome in its myopic groping has come to this conclusion.

quote: quote: Then Rome decided it couldn't exert control if everybody was using their own vernacular and forced converts to attend Latin Mass. What did this accomplish? Nothing but the ignorance of the masses. And what would the translation of the mass accomplish in an age where Latin was the lingua franca, and was understood by anyone who was educated in those times? The ignorance of the masses had very little to do with the Latin mass.

Except mass isn't for the tiny percentage of educated Latin speakers, it is for the whole body.

You see, this whole doctrine of forcing Latin upon the church is born of obsession and fear. The church in Rome had an unhealthy obsession for control, and fear that any tiny slip in that control would lead to error. They had no vision of God at work in the believer.

quote: No, the church has a human nature and a divine nature. The divine nature cannot be corrupted, even as the human nature corrupts, in the same way that the Lord's supper remains regardless of the priest who performs the service. My question to you, is that if there is no divine nature in the church, why do you go? If there is solely human corruption, then the church cannot give you anything which you do not already have in yourself.

God does not inhabit things, God indwells believers. The mass is just a lump of bread. It is not the priest who makes it holy, it is the one who receives for whom it is holy or profane. Or at least Paul said so, and I think he was on the mark.

Just so, we are not made holy by belonging to an organization. We are made holy by belonging to God, born of the spirit. Or at least Jesus said so, and I think He knew better than our fourth century theologians.

quote: This ... www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/just2.html ... is a defense of Justification by faith. Given time, I am sure I could find a defense of Luther from a direct citation, but this will have to do for now. Suffice to say, Luther says that Justification is a legal act, it cannot change your inner self, it cannot make you holy. This is the problem that I have with Luther's teachings on Justification.

You are trying very hard to put the cart in front of the horse. I think you've misread the article. Nowhere does the writer say that God does not make you righteous. The application of justification (as defined) is not that part of the process. The author explains it thus:

quote: It is very important to recognize the difference between imputed righteousness and inherent righteousness. This distinction is at the heart of the matter. Inherent righteousness would be: 1. Good things you do for God. 2. Good things that God does in you. It is not the ground of your justification. God does not justify you on the basis of righteousness that inheres in you. That is, He does not declare you righteous because He has first transformed you into a good person...

If you'll read a little more on the same website you will find a more complete and theological treatment of the doctrine. Here you will see that the doctrine is broken into two parts for analysis, Justification: Redemption Applied and Sanctification: Redemption Expressed.

I will only say that you have much studying to do before you are ready for the tests, young Obiwan. If you have not properly understood the teaching, how can you make a proper decision?

quote: Every church has doctrine that must be accepted in order to call oneself a member, even if this doctrine is limited to the declaration that Christ is the son of God.

Straw man. Unless you care to show a doctrine which not only does not derive from scripture but at least superficially appears to contradict it you have no point here except in gainsaying me.

	08-06-2005 05:14									#278
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi "And the greatest among you must be servant to all". RC doctrine affirms the principle that the priests are to serve, and not be served. You did nothing to address my point that a shepherd without a flock is hardly a shepherd. The laity has authority beyond that of mere discipline, they do not need to be able to suspend or remove a priest in order to have authority.

Interesting take... so that one little phrase is the basis for creating a priestly overclass and a lay underclass? Please explain to me this alleged "authority" that the laymen have. You keep refering to it but there is nothing there.

quote: First of all, is there a cultural base to the statements and practices in the Gospel? I thought most who wished to restore the primitive church deny that these statements have a cultural base and rather ought to be followed by congregations today.

No, the efforts to restore primitive worship assert that the fourteen centuries of Greco-Roman tradition added to the Gospel are foreign and don't belong there. That assumes that there is (or was) a native culture in which the Gospel stands without need for extra-cultural education.

quote: Secondly, you leave out the interpretation of the church of certain doctrine that has become the tradition of the church on these matters. I suspect this is because you reject the notion that tradition can have any influence on the doctrinal issues inside Christianity. Given the history of Christianity, the doctrinal issues seem a central part of the tradition of the church to clarify things that have not been explicitly stated in the Gospels.

No, it is that latecoming tradition is not of equal value or authority to the scriptures. They are perptually provisional, always subject to correction including rejection. And thus we have rejected the greater part of those traditions as unworthy of comparison to the glory of the Gospel.

quote: Yet we are all ingrafted branches. If God wanted to base his church solely on Jewish tradition than all Christians would be circumcised. They are not, and so we cannot rest solely upon Jewish tradition in order to understand Christianity. Both are together, Jews and Gentiles alike in Christ.

Sorry, that argument is nullified in scripture: Peter conceded the point to Paul. The basis of Christianity is not the practices of Jewish religion. The Jewish Messiah came for both Jew and Gentile. I'm not going to quote a dozen verses and argue the point here, you are certainly capable of reading the epistles for yourself.

quote: One of these doctrines is the Trinity. How does it make sense to ascribe the formulations of the Trinity to the Apostles, given that they were declared by the church as tradition?

I don't recall that any "formulations of the Trinity" are ascribed to the original Apostles. In fact, they seemed to speak plainly and openly about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit without feeling the slightest need to define them in human terms.

quote: quote: It does, but in general human understanding fares poorly in crossing cultural borders. True tradition explains the things that scripture assumes the reader understands. False tradition introduces things the scriptures never assumed nor permitted. Yet the Trinity seems a strange thing to infer from a simple reading of the Gospels. In knowing the Trinity, the Gospels make much more sense, which to me is the sign of proper tradition, in drawing out truth from Scripture. As for human understanding not crossing cultural boundaries, I am unsure of what to say of that. Culture is the family that one grows up in, and if the family practices, then the tradition of the church will be part of the culture of that family, regardless of where and how they live.

Not at all. Traditions can be very fluid. It takes great effort to preserve a tradition faithfully, and in most cases those traditions shift over time. You say you first heard of the Seder in the Catholic Church, but do Roman Catholics observe the Seder? Was the connection between the Seder and last Supper routinely taught to the laymen in the Roman Catholic church over the last sixteen centuries? Assuredly not.

The RCC substituted its own inventions in place of the Seder. The Sacraments became mystical ceremonies that worked their magic in the realm of the unseeable, unknowable Substance while we muggles remained stuck in the mere Accident.

	08-06-2005 05:15									#279
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Which begs the question. Does not the Catholic church approve of natural family planning? ALso, in saying there is no lengthy history you admit that the acceptance of artificial contraception is an innovation to Christianity, without foundation in either scripture or tradition. The difference between the two of them, is that there is no difference between abstaining from sex and from natural family planning. The two are of the same nature, since scripture affirms that the couple are not to deny each other except for a short time, according to mutual agreement! This is not true of artificial contraception which seeks to allow the union of the couple, without the consequences therein. You are always witholding yourself from your wife. My point is that it is alien to the Christian conception of the family, and we see this through the withered fruits of contraception.

By no means. The RC tradition of opposing contraception is based on an inductive reading of one passage from Genesis and another from Leviticus/Deuteronomy which ignores the context in both cases.

Both passages are illustrative of a pre-Kassite Aramean tradition which was substantially preserved in early Hebrew tradition. When a man dies without issue his widow is entitled to bear a child in the name of the dead husband by way of a full or half brother.

In Genesis we have two brothers who lustfully agree to bed the lovely widow but cheat her of her entitlement. In Lev/Deut we see a prohibition of this shameful abuse of a widow. In no place is a man prohibited from using the withdrawal method or any other contraconception with his own wife. Expanding this inductively to a broad prohibition against any form of contraception is at best questionable.

quote: Catholics believe that just as Christ is very much risen, so have the saints of the church. quote: That RC teaching is error. Paul instructs us that the resurrection is yet to come, that those who have died will not rise until after those who are still alive have been transformed at Christ's Appearing. Christ the firstfruits, then we who remain, then the dead in Christ. Yet does not scripture also say that some of the dead are already in heaven? The question I had the hardest time working out is Moses. He died on earth, and yet, we see him on the Mount of the Transfiguration. If he is dead, how can he be with Elijah?

Who says that those in heaven are resurrected? Who says that Elijah was either "alive" or resurrected? Scripture only says that Elijah was taken away and didn't leave a body behind. There are a multitude of assumptions between that and RC doctrine.

I can only say, once again, that you seem to have settled upon the answer given by the RC church without fully investigating the matter either within the RC position or positions from Protestant theology.

	08-06-2005 05:47									#280
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The RC teaching on Birth control is stupid. Its an open secret that the commission that inquired into it recommended birth control be allowed but the findings were rewritten by conservatives in the Vatican.

This more than any other reason has caused the mass loss of parishioners in Western countries over the past 30 years. Humanae Vitae insults the intelligence of the faithful. Its widely ignored by practicing catholics.

	08-06-2005 05:52									#281
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Politics is reality. The leaders make choices for their own reasons, and some of those choices will benefit God and the believers while other choices will not. Translation of the scriptures and liturgy into the vernacular is of the first group, beyond all doubt. Even Rome in its myopic groping has come to this conclusion.

Beyond all doubt? Isn't that saying that the translation of scripture and the liturgy into the vernacular is an infalliable teaching?

That is the very point you are fighting against, that any tradition of the church can be considered infalliable. The translation of the mass into the vernacular is a part of the tradition of the church, and not explicitly directed in scripture.

quote: Except mass isn't for the tiny percentage of educated Latin speakers, it is for the whole body. You see, this whole doctrine of forcing Latin upon the church is born of obsession and fear. The church in Rome had an unhealthy obsession for control, and fear that any tiny slip in that control would lead to error. They had no vision of God at work in the believer.

Fair enough, but my question is did it make much sense, before the invention of a printing press, to give mass in the vernacular? Back then, books were precious, and to translate the bible, a very onerous and difficult task. Most of the priests themselves would not have read the scripture, even given their responsibilities to the church.

The only time any such translation would be undertaken, is if the situation warranted, as Jerome did, from the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate. Enough people spoke Latin, and understood Latin to make such a translation worthwhile.

I am convinced that the two come hand in hand, the translation of scripture, into the vernacular, and the development of the printing press. It made it far more easy to perform such translations.

quote: God does not inhabit things, God indwells believers. The mass is just a lump of bread. It is not the priest who makes it holy, it is the one who receives for whom it is holy or profane. Or at least Paul said so, and I think he was on the mark.

What is the difference between God indwelling believers, and inhabiting things?

Second of all, what do the Catholics teach about the real presence? It is called the real presence, because they believe that the bread becomes the body of Christ, not that Christ inhabits the bread.

quote: Just so, we are not made holy by belonging to an organization. We are made holy by belonging to God, born of the spirit. Or at least Jesus said so, and I think He knew better than our fourth century theologians.

The relationship between Christ and his church is an interesting topic that we could spend plenty of time talking about. You are right that belonging to a church does not make one holy, but belonging to Christ does.

I'm going to set aside justification to do the topic justice.

quote: Straw man. Unless you care to show a doctrine which not only does not derive from scripture but at least superficially appears to contradict it you have no point here except in gainsaying me.

A profession of faith is not the same as scripture, as a condensation of the essential teachings of any church. If you look at different Christian churches, they will have different professions of faith, reflecting the differences between the churches.

Now my question is this. If these individual professions of faith vary, yet scripture does not, and all these churches use the same canon, then why do their professions differ? I think the differences arise from the traditions of the church, in emphasising certain teachings of scripture over others.

Secondly, if you say that if the profession of faith does not contradict scripture, it must be valid, then why do you not accept the profession of faith given in the Catholic church? They say that according to their interpretation, their profession does not contradict scripture, as will any other church say about their own profession.

	08-06-2005 06:09									#282
	Tired of ads?

quote: Interesting take... so that one little phrase is the basis for creating a priestly overclass and a lay underclass? Please explain to me this alleged "authority" that the laymen have. You keep refering to it but there is nothing there.

First of all, that one little phrase states that anyone who is given authority is to act as a servant. As such any 'overclass' cannot act as one, because they are to serve the 'underclass'. In effect, the heirarchy is turned upside down.

Secondly, if all the parish leaves, then the priest doesn't have any laypeople to lord it over. This is the real authority of the laypeople.

quote: No, the efforts to restore primitive worship assert that the fourteen centuries of Greco-Roman tradition added to the Gospel are foreign and don't belong there. That assumes that there is (or was) a native culture in which the Gospel stands without need for extra-cultural education.

Okay, but to assume that there is a primitive 'culture' is subject to the same critique. If the teaching is simply part of the cultural mileau, then the church in modern times, ought to discard such cultural artifacts, which no longer make sense in our new culture.

quote: No, it is that latecoming tradition is not of equal value or authority to the scriptures. They are perptually provisional, always subject to correction including rejection. And thus we have rejected the greater part of those traditions as unworthy of comparison to the glory of the Gospel.

Much of what is assumed today, is because of these 'latecoming' traditions. The nature of Christ, the formulation of the Trinity, all of this is 'latecoming' tradition added onto the Gospels.

quote: Sorry, that argument is nullified in scripture: Peter conceded the point to Paul. The basis of Christianity is not the practices of Jewish religion. The Jewish Messiah came for both Jew and Gentile. I'm not going to quote a dozen verses and argue the point here, you are certainly capable of reading the epistles for yourself.

If Peter lost, then why are you rejecting Paul's argument of the Gentile influence over Christianity?

quote: I don't recall that any "formulations of the Trinity" are ascribed to the original Apostles. In fact, they seemed to speak plainly and openly about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit without feeling the slightest need to define them in human terms.

Agreed. The formulation of the Trinity fits with scripture, but it only arose given controversy over the imprecision of the Gospel accounts.

quote: Not at all. Traditions can be very fluid. It takes great effort to preserve a tradition faithfully, and in most cases those traditions shift over time. You say you first heard of the Seder in the Catholic Church, but do Roman Catholics observe the Seder? Was the connection between the Seder and last Supper routinely taught to the laymen in the Roman Catholic church over the last sixteen centuries? Assuredly not.

Well, the protestants don't teach the connection between the seder and the last supper today, so I don't see how they can complain that the Catholic church makes that connection clearer.

quote: The RCC substituted its own inventions in place of the Seder. The Sacraments became mystical ceremonies that worked their magic in the realm of the unseeable, unknowable Substance while we muggles remained stuck in the mere Accident.

The idea of a mystery is that it is not fully comprehended by ourselves and our limitations. That does not mean it cannot be somewhat understood, but only that we have to understand these limitations.

Secondly, even the wizards are muggles, there is no 'secret knowledge' available to a few. Everything that is known is out there and available to anyone who wishes to know more.

	08-06-2005 06:21									#283
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: By no means. The RC tradition of opposing contraception is based on an inductive reading of one passage from Genesis and another from Leviticus/Deuteronomy which ignores the context in both cases.

Is that so? I suggest you should read what the Roman Catholics say about themselves, and how they defend their teachings against contraception.

They do not refer to either passage, rather they refer to Matthew's gospel, which teaches that the two in marriage are to become one flesh.

quote: Who says that those in heaven are resurrected? Who says that Elijah was either "alive" or resurrected? Scripture only says that Elijah was taken away and didn't leave a body behind. There are a multitude of assumptions between that and RC doctrine. I can only say, once again, that you seem to have settled upon the answer given by the RC church without fully investigating the matter either within the RC position or positions from Protestant theology.

You skillfully avoided my question. Moses died here on Earth, while Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven. Yet Moses appears with Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration. How can this be? The only satisfactory answer I have received to this question is the Catholic understanding of the saints.

	08-06-2005 06:25									#284
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Humanae Vitae insults the intelligence of the faithful.

So only the simple bother reading it?

	08-06-2005 06:28									#285
	Full PM-box? Change here!

it isn't very long

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...e-vitae_en.html

The only good thing about it from my pov is it bans sterilisation

	08-06-2005 06:29									#286
	Increase Your PM Length

You jumped in before I was done, had some googling to do!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Actually, if you read about the history behind them, political action cannot be ascribed solely to the establishment of the creeds, often political action opposed the creeds in the form in which we now know them.

No, my point was that the councils themselves were political in nature, not academic. One side outvoted the other. Whether secular powers favored on side or the other is immaterial. Second, there are times when merely setting the debate is a victory. In this case, getting the councils to argue about which Greek philosophy to recognize has already compromised the truth.

quote: Becoming mature doesn't mean repeating the work that has already been done, but in understanding what has been done. Reciting creeds is different than understanding, and I agree, but it is not necessary to throw away everything that has been done by mature Christians that have gone before you.

Becoming mature can only be done by repeating in yourself what has been done in others before. It isn't a matter of throwing away creeds, it is recognizing them as crutches and longing for the day when we stand before Christ without their aid. They express something in a way that is easy to understand but necessarily incomplete.

quote: First off, where does RC doctrine say that Mary can understand us better than Christ? Secondly, just because Mary understands Christ better than we understand him, is not the same as saying that she understands us better than Christ. quote: Hide behind Mary's skirt if you like, but it will hinder you from seeing and hearing from God and open yourself to deception. Perhaps, but I don't consider defending Catholic teachings as hiding behind her skirt. Why are you so afraid of Mary?

And when did you stop beating your wife? Let's not play those rhetorical games. I do not fear, I oppose Mariology in the most strenuous possible terms as error second only to that one sin which is unforgivable.

I speak of hiding behind Mary's skirt because that is exactly what you, the dutiful Catholic, is commanded to do in Ineffablis Deus by Pope Pius IX, declaring the Immaculate Conception ex cathedra as infallible doctrine. Maybe this kind of flowery language does something for you (it goes on for about 12 pages or so), I'll just quote the most relevant bit:

quote: Let all the children of the Catholic Church, who are so very dear to us, hear these words of ours. With a still more ardent zeal for piety, religion and love, let them continue to venerate, invoke and pray to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, conceived without original sin. Let them fly with utter confidence to this most sweet Mother of mercy and grace in all dangers, difficulties, needs, doubts and fears. Under her guidance, under her patronage, under her kindness and protection, nothing is to be feared; nothing is hopeless. Because, while bearing toward us a truly motherly affection and having in her care the work of our salvation, she is solicitous about the whole human race. And since she has been appointed by God to be the Queen of heaven and earth, and is exalted above all the choirs of angels and saints, and even stands at the right hand of her only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, she presents our petitions in a most efficacious manner. What she asks, she obtains. Her pleas can never be unheard.

Ben, if Christ and the Apostles have taught us to pray to God in Jesus' name, why would you pray to anyone else, or in anyone else's name??? Why seek the comfort, aid, protection, or counsel of some dead saint whom you've never met? Why not pray to your own dead ancestor or beloved kitty cat buried in the back yard? Doesn't God love them, too, and listen to them? Doesn't God love you and listen to you?

It's one thing to oppose Mariology based on the teachings of the scriptures. The hard line is that if you have a relationship with the risen Christ the idea of turning to anyone else should be nothing short of repulsive.

God says He shares His glory with no human. He commands us to have no other gods before Him (gods, godlings, demigods, angels, exalted beings of any kind), and to make no graven images (that is, teach that He inhabits any material item or substance to which one should give worship or reverence).

To speak in the vernacular, Roman Catholicism blows it big-time.

	08-06-2005 07:25									#287
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Ben, if Christ and the Apostles have taught us to pray to God in Jesus' name, why would you pray to anyone else, or in anyone else's name???

People don't pray to Mary or other saints but through them. This is a mainstream Christian tradition not confined the catholicism.

With regard to Mary the tradition is that Jesus will not refuse his mother's request and this is based on the story of the wedding feast at Cana.

	08-06-2005 07:34									#288
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Psst: if you'd use "q" instead of "quote" this would be much easier.

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi quote: Politics is reality. The leaders make choices for their own reasons, and some of those choices will benefit God and the believers while other choices will not. Translation of the scriptures and liturgy into the vernacular is of the first group, beyond all doubt. Even Rome in its myopic groping has come to this conclusion. Beyond all doubt? Isn't that saying that the translation of scripture and the liturgy into the vernacular is an infalliable teaching? That is the very point you are fighting against, that any tradition of the church can be considered infalliable. The translation of the mass into the vernacular is a part of the tradition of the church, and not explicitly directed in scripture.

Jesus said to make disciples of all nations. He didn't say teach them all just enough Latin to mutter the official liturgy. Reaching them in their own languages is also given a wink of Divine approval in the miracle of Pentecoste.

quote: Fair enough, but my question is did it make much sense, before the invention of a printing press, to give mass in the vernacular? Back then, books were precious, and to translate the bible, a very onerous and difficult task. Most of the priests themselves would not have read the scripture, even given their responsibilities to the church. The only time any such translation would be undertaken, is if the situation warranted, as Jerome did, from the Greek Septuagint to the Latin Vulgate. Enough people spoke Latin, and understood Latin to make such a translation worthwhile. I am convinced that the two come hand in hand, the translation of scripture, into the vernacular, and the development of the printing press. It made it far more easy to perform such translations.

This is a phenomenally poor rationalization. Do we refrain from doing what is right just because it is difficult? No. The church is supposed to be reaching out to the lost. That's the job of all believers. If the church is too distracted with Councils and debates over philosophical wording they've lost sight of their purpose.

If the priests had not read the scriptures then how is it they were qualified for their positions? Had the church continued the effort to make the Gospel accessible in the vernacular of each region and tribe the question would be moot.

Second, the scriptures were translated into Latin decades before Jerome, only the people who did it were not in Rome and it didn't attract as much attention. Jerome was commissioned to do the work for the church in Rome, and he borrowed heavily from those before him.

Third, the scriptures were translated into the vernacular in many countries by dissident monks such as Wycliffe. Over the Medieval centuries you can find almost every language in Europe had vernaculars faithfully and skillfully rendered. And then burned by the disapproving church.

The Romans had printing presses, what Gutenberg did was introduce moveable type. Creating master blocks for fixed printing presses was far more effort. If the church had been doing their job instead of playing politics they had more than adequate manpower to accomplish the task.

quote: quote: God does not inhabit things, God indwells believers. The mass is just a lump of bread. It is not the priest who makes it holy, it is the one who receives for whom it is holy or profane. Or at least Paul said so, and I think he was on the mark. What is the difference between God indwelling believers, and inhabiting things? Second of all, what do the Catholics teach about the real presence? It is called the real presence, because they believe that the bread becomes the body of Christ, not that Christ inhabits the bread.

If you can't tell the difference between indwelling believers and inhabiting inanimate objects I can't help you.

Second, if Christ does not inhabit His "body" what makes it a "body," much less "real?" No, the Real Presence means Jesus makes it His body here and now. It is to be worshiped as Christ Himself is worshiped, held aloft in the monstrance. Otherwise it would just be a relic, an item of curiosity or myth.

This is where the whole neo-Aristotelian debate comes in. A physical object has attributes that are knowable (the Accidental) and attributes that are hidden but actually define the object (the Substantial). Where do they get this from? Did Aristotle and his followers receive some special revelation from the divine to understand this mystical truth?

No, it is just a bunch of hogwash like the four Aristotelian elements of Earth, Sea, Fire and Air. This is what people believed in the Medieval period, and so they thought they could transmute metals based on their supposed elemental components. The church believed they could transmute the wafer because its Substance was not reflected in its Accidental form.

By distracting the church on these lines the enemy has succeeded in directing the attention of billions away from the Gospel and onto saints, and rites, and trivialities that will not save souls.

	08-06-2005 07:35									#289
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi quote: quote: Every church has doctrine that must be accepted in order to call oneself a member, even if this doctrine is limited to the declaration that Christ is the son of God. Straw man. Unless you care to show a doctrine which not only does not derive from scripture but at least superficially appears to contradict it you have no point here except in gainsaying me. A profession of faith is not the same as scripture, as a condensation of the essential teachings of any church. If you look at different Christian churches, they will have different professions of faith, reflecting the differences between the churches. Now my question is this. If these individual professions of faith vary, yet scripture does not, and all these churches use the same canon, then why do their professions differ? I think the differences arise from the traditions of the church, in emphasising certain teachings of scripture over others. Secondly, if you say that if the profession of faith does not contradict scripture, it must be valid, then why do you not accept the profession of faith given in the Catholic church? They say that according to their interpretation, their profession does not contradict scripture, as will any other church say about their own profession.

Because it does conflict on too many points to list, even in dozens of lengthy, eye-straining posts. When you look at the incredible volume of jibberish that passes for doctrine (just try reading the whole of Ineffablis Deus, one of ten thousand documents just like it) there is no substance there. Page after page of unsupported assertions and mind-numbing, broken logic.

	08-06-2005 07:43									#290
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Alexander's Horse quote: Ben, if Christ and the Apostles have taught us to pray to God in Jesus' name, why would you pray to anyone else, or in anyone else's name??? People don't pray to Mary or other saints but through them. This is a mainstream Christian tradition not confined the catholicism. With regard to Mary the tradition is that Jesus will not refuse his mother's request and this is based on the story of the wedding feast at Cana.

Actually, in the wedding at Cana Jesus fulfilled Mary's request, and it is one of the foundations of Mariology that her requests are not refused. I believe you'll find it in the Papal Bull cited above (again, it's only a dozen pages... have fun).

[Edit: not there but JPII says quite a bit about it in Rosarium Virginis Mariae (2002) and Redemptoris Mater (1987) ]

Yes, Mariology is found in Orthodox traditions as well. The root of all of it is pre/proto-gnostic Greek philosophy of a Platonic God and lesser divine Emanations. And the mythical tradition of the Hero's Mother. Just because it was an early tradition does not mean it was not error. After all, there was error among the Apostles themselves that had to be corrected!

	08-06-2005 08:00									#291
	Full PM-box? Change here!

mainstream protestant denominations have Marian devotion too and I don't really know why some protestant sects get so hung up about it. Its a wonderful pious tradition.

having said that, Maran devotion and devotion to other saints can get a bit cultish at times so I see your point.

One thing about Mary is many people feel uncomfortable praying directly to Jesus, out of their deep reverence for him, so they turn to Mary, who they feel they can talk to and who will put their concerns better than they could themselves.

I should also point out that you need to be careful what you say about Mary in conversation because if you put her down someone might re-arrange your face

The affection for her is very strong because of all the help she gives to Christians. In our darkest hours, like when family members are dying, she is the one many Christians turn to. So be a bit diplomatic if the topic comes up Many would die for her or to defend her good name, just as they would for Jesus.

Why don't you try talking to her yourself? The tradition is she answers every prayer and its never been known that she failed a christian

	08-06-2005 08:28									#292
	Get a bigger avatar today!

In other words, some Protestant denominations didn't finish the job.

Luther himself was quite devoted to Mary, but then again Luther wasn't infallible.

Seriously though, I wonder if the "gentlemen" who would rearrange your face for saying something they disapprove would think Mary approves their action? In this day and age I don't think they could pray, "Mother Mary, I'm gonna pound anyone who dares say such things about you." At least, not if they are anything but a godless thug.

This is half my point, that the Roman Catholic church seems more interested in preserving parochial interests than making disciples of Christ.

	08-06-2005 09:06									#293
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Straybow Seriously though, I wonder if the "gentlemen" who would rearrange your face for saying something they disapprove would think Mary approves their action? In this day and age I don't think they could pray, "Mother Mary, I'm gonna pound anyone who dares say such things about you." At least, not if they are anything but a godless thug.

Well noone would approve of that but I thought I'd point it out because you'd probably be surprised at some of the men's men, salt of the earth types, who have a set of rosary beads in their pocket. Attacking Mary they'd take as like a personal attack on their dear old Mum. They'd see red.

You think its rubbish, others see Mary as part of the essence and deepest most precious heartfelt part of their faith, dearly loved and treasured. Something men don't easily talk about. Often linked to love of mother, perhaps dead, who was the one who taught them the beautiful Marian prayers. I certainly can't think of the rosary without thinking of my grand mother and great Aunts, her sisters, saying it. All now long dead. Also linked in this wort of way to purity and cherished memories of the innocence of childhood. You want to put sh*t on those things? Folks will get upset real fast

I'm just being a good neighbour warning about it

	08-06-2005 10:39									#294
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I know you care, AH. That's why you're such a sweet spirit here in OT.

	08-06-2005 10:46									#295
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi quote: Interesting take... so that one little phrase is the basis for creating a priestly overclass and a lay underclass? Please explain to me this alleged "authority" that the laymen have. You keep refering to it but there is nothing there. First of all, that one little phrase states that anyone who is given authority is to act as a servant. As such any 'overclass' cannot act as one, because they are to serve the 'underclass'. In effect, the heirarchy is turned upside down. Secondly, if all the parish leaves, then the priest doesn't have any laypeople to lord it over. This is the real authority of the laypeople.

That's not what I'm talking about. The priestly overclass has powers reserved to it alone. The Pope is officially the Vicar of Christ. He stands in place of Christ on earth. The Cardinals and Bishops and Priest serve under his authority. But this is far more than just a human organization accroding to RC doctrine.

In RC doctrine, Ordination is a sacrament. That means they appeal to the Aristotelian Accident and Substance concept and say that after Ordination the Substance of the Priest is changed to become Priestly. It cannot then be changed back, it is permanently imbued with new characteristics.

The Pope actually becomes a part of Christ in a way that no other Priest (much less the lowly layman) is a part of Christ.

Peter, however, says that all believers constitute a priesthood, no new class of priest has been introduced. If there were a Substance that is changed it is common to all believers who are "born of the spirit." (Not that John 3 is reflective of neo-Aristotelian philosophy, rather of Genesis. Man alone is given life by the breath of God, and man alone can be joined to the spirit of God by that breath.)

quote: quote: No, the efforts to restore primitive worship assert that the fourteen centuries of Greco-Roman tradition added to the Gospel are foreign and don't belong there. That assumes that there is (or was) a native culture in which the Gospel stands without need for extra-cultural education. Okay, but to assume that there is a primitive 'culture' is subject to the same critique. If the teaching is simply part of the cultural mileau, then the church in modern times, ought to discard such cultural artifacts, which no longer make sense in our new culture.

Yes, and we do. We no longer observe the Sabbath as the Jews practice it, or even on the seventh day. We no longer keep kosher dietary restrictions. We no longer circumcise in accordance with the Bris. But, if we wish to understand what Jesus said we need to see it through the lens of that culture. And the fact is, the more we keep the commandments of Jesus the more we live like that culture and not like the Godless gentiles of that day.

quote: Much of what is assumed today, is because of these 'latecoming' traditions. The nature of Christ, the formulation of the Trinity, all of this is 'latecoming' tradition added onto the Gospels. If Peter lost, then why are you rejecting Paul's argument of the Gentile influence over Christianity?

Paul doesn't teach that the Gentiles should influence Christianity, he teaches that Christianity should transform the Gentiles in true worshipers of the God of the Jews, believers in His Son Jesus Christ, without the baggage of Jewish interpretation of Mosaic Law. I don't think the writings of Paul would be considered "latecoming" to Christianity.

quote: Well, the protestants don't teach the connection between the seder and the last supper today, so I don't see how they can complain that the Catholic church makes that connection clearer.

Except I did learn about the Seder through the Protestant teachings, and I don't think the Catholic church makes the connection clearer. RC teaching obscures the meaning of the Seder, the Lord's Supper, and believer's communion behind the veil of Greek philosophical babble.

	08-06-2005 11:00									#296
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: quote: The RCC substituted its own inventions in place of the Seder. The Sacraments became mystical ceremonies that worked their magic in the realm of the unseeable, unknowable Substance while we muggles remained stuck in the mere Accident. The idea of a mystery is that it is not fully comprehended by ourselves and our limitations. That does not mean it cannot be somewhat understood, but only that we have to understand these limitations. Secondly, even the wizards are muggles, there is no 'secret knowledge' available to a few. Everything that is known is out there and available to anyone who wishes to know more.

That isn't true. The whole concept of Accident and Substance is baloney. If the wafer actually became the Real Presence of Christ, where are the miracles? Where is the woman healed of the issue of blood? They should be happening left and right, like the people who were healed just by touching handkerchiefs that Paul had prayed over.

If the wafer actually changes why can it not be detected? I issued this challenge once before to a Catholic. Get two boxes that are approved for holding the consecrated wafer. In one place a concecrated wafer, in the other have a skeptic place an identical unconsecrated wafer. Have a third party secretly mark the boxes and perform a double-blind test to see if the Priest can discern the one he blessed.

He can't. There is no test to see if a wafer is actually consecrated, to see if it actually becomes the Real Presence. The Priest can't accidentally mess up the Sacrament and fail. If he completely forgets and uses an unconsecrated wafer, according to the current teaching of the RC church, the sacrament is still perserved.

In fact, as the teaching now stands, all we benighted Protestants who take communion actually partake of the Real Presence, even though we say we don't want to! It has to be that way, they say, because they reluctantly admit that we are saved, accepted and beloved by God, and that only happens by their Sacraments.

On the other hand we have marriage. According to RC doctrine marriage is a Sacrament. That means marriage also causes a permanent change in the Substance of the two so that they become "one flesh." No, it isn't just metaphorical, or the twining of kindred souls, but literally one flesh in the invisible characteristic of Substance.

However, the Priest can't tell that this has happened properly. Every once in a while the RC church will admit that it didn't happen properly and issues an Annulment. They officially declare "it never happened." For many centuries this only seemed to happen to really important people, like Kings. You'd think God and the Priests would be really careful to get it right for Kings and let the peasants slide.

Divorce, on the other hand is impossible. Nope, what God has put together let no man put asunder. We can't even ask God to put it asunder, instead we must ask the church to look back in time, with its unquestionable wisdom, and declare that it never happened. God forsees that this couple would want a divorce x number of years later, so He intervenes and makes it not happen even thought the Priest goes through the rite.

So, I guess it's better to fool a couple into thinking they have the blessing of sacramental marriage, have them live together and bear children and then find themselves without the blessing of marriage. No, we can't admit that sometimes people get hard-hearted and the best way to make peace is to end it. You know, like what Jesus said about divorce. (Just another example of how RC doctrine contradicts scripture.)

How did they paint themselves into this absurd corner? It is all assumed, based on teachings that go back centuries but do not go back to Christ and the Apostles.

So what do the Apostles say about "mysteries?" Whenever Paul speaks of a mystery it is something that before Christ was hinted at, but now is fully revealed in Christ. It never refers to something new, never before seen in scripture, and completely imperceptible even to the Priest performing the ceremony!

	08-06-2005 11:33									#297
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Ben Kenobi quote: By no means. The RC tradition of opposing contraception is based on an inductive reading of one passage from Genesis and another from Leviticus/Deuteronomy which ignores the context in both cases. Is that so? I suggest you should read what the Roman Catholics say about themselves, and how they defend their teachings against contraception. They do not refer to either passage, rather they refer to Matthew's gospel, which teaches that the two in marriage are to become one flesh.

I will concede that modern RC statements do not rely on the two I cited. However the historical origins of RC sexual hang-ups about contraception do tie to those two scriptures. In the RC church you cannot separate the past from the present because there is, in their own eyes, unbroken continuity of dogma.

quote: quote: Who says that those in heaven are resurrected? Who says that Elijah was either "alive" or resurrected? Scripture only says that Elijah was taken away and didn't leave a body behind. There are a multitude of assumptions between that and RC doctrine. I can only say, once again, that you seem to have settled upon the answer given by the RC church without fully investigating the matter either within the RC position or positions from Protestant theology. You skillfully avoided my question. Moses died here on Earth, while Elijah was bodily assumed into heaven. Yet Moses appears with Elijah on the Mount of the Transfiguration. How can this be? The only satisfactory answer I have received to this question is the Catholic understanding of the saints.

Ok, I'll break it down for you. Moses died. Elijah disappeared without leaving a body behind, and traditionally he was "assumed" into heaven. So then what happened? Is Elijah sitting around in heaven in a mortal body? Did his mortal body simply slough off, incapable of existing in the realm of the spirit? Has he been given a resurrection body that is qualitatively different? Has Moses been given a resurrection body?

These are all assumptions which can't be answered. There is no answer. Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus. We don't know if they are incorporeal spirits made temporarily visible, but they certainly could be.

The doctrine of the Resurrection taught by Paul contradicts RC teaching as you've stated it. The resurrection of believers does not occur until Christ's return. This is about as direct a teaching as ever found in scripture. But if you don't understand scripture, how can you judge whether RC doctrine is true just because Moses and Elijah appeared before Jesus?

	08-06-2005 17:10									#298
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

10 pages of this thread to read - too long ha.

Just wanted to say welcome to the club, BK

	08-06-2005 22:38									#299
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Thank you Barinthus.

It's an interesting discussion for those willing to take the time to read it all.

	08-06-2005 22:58									#300
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: That isn't true. The whole concept of Accident and Substance is baloney. If the wafer actually became the Real Presence of Christ, where are the miracles? Where is the woman healed of the issue of blood? They should be happening left and right, like the people who were healed just by touching handkerchiefs that Paul had prayed over.

Isn't this one of the temptations of Satan to Christ? If you are the Son of God, and surely, God will rescue you, why do you not jump off the temple, and let God save you?

What does Christ reply? "It is written, do not put the Lord God to the test."

This is what you are doing here, you are putting God to the test, by asking the Real Presence to be proven through empirical means. Even if it could be done, why would the test be successful? God cannot be constrained to such an experiment, and experiments to be valid require such constraints.

Are some people healed? Yes. Are all sick people who come into contact with the eucharist healed? No. Is this any different from any of the miracles of Christ? No. Does not Christ in his miracles say, 'Go, your faith has healed you?' And does he also not say, 'Neither his father nor his mother sinned, but he has suffered so that the glory of God may be shown'.

quote: In fact, as the teaching now stands, all we benighted Protestants who take communion actually partake of the Real Presence, even though we say we don't want to! It has to be that way, they say, because they reluctantly admit that we are saved, accepted and beloved by God, and that only happens by their Sacraments.

Why so? This is the second part, transubstantiation, which is why the priests themselves can consecrate the eucharist, and why no one else has that privilege. Your conclusion is false, the Catholic church teaches that while sacraments are a method, they are only a method, and that God is not constrained to the sacraments, in order to provide salvation. This is a very old argument, and Catholics who have said that salvation can only be had through the sacraments have been repudiated.

You say they reluctantly accept, but that attitude is changing. The recognition that even though protestants are separated brethren, that they remain brothers and sisters in Christ, is a sea change from the earlier position of the Catholic church, and needs to be understood as such.

So while you are right, that people can be saved outside of the Catholic church, you are wrong that you partake of the body and blood of Christ, since you do not believe that this is true! No one can be healed, unless he believes that he may be healed, so how can anyone partake of the sacrament of the eucharist, unless they believe in the real presence?

quote: On the other hand we have marriage. According to RC doctrine marriage is a Sacrament. That means marriage also causes a permanent change in the Substance of the two so that they become "one flesh." No, it isn't just metaphorical, or the twining of kindred souls, but literally one flesh in the invisible characteristic of Substance.

Yes, it is literally one flesh, just as Christ is married to his church. Don't forget that part of Paul's teachings.

quote: However, the Priest can't tell that this has happened properly. Every once in a while the RC church will admit that it didn't happen properly and issues an Annulment. They officially declare "it never happened." For many centuries this only seemed to happen to really important people, like Kings. You'd think God and the Priests would be really careful to get it right for Kings and let the peasants slide.

Interesting. Wasn't the establishment of one of the more longstanding protestant denominations based upon a rejection of a request for annulment?

You imply that such annulments were taken upon casually, which is refuted by what happened to our good ol' Henry VIII. They were not taken upon casually, they were grave affairs, much different from the way in which society views divorce today.

quote: No, we can't admit that sometimes people get hard-hearted and the best way to make peace is to end it. You know, like what Jesus said about divorce. (Just another example of how RC doctrine contradicts scripture.)

You attack a strawman, again. What does the RC church teach about marriage? Do they permit divorce in certain circumstances, such as marital infidelity? Isn't that precisely what Christ says in Matthew?

quote: So what do the Apostles say about "mysteries?" Whenever Paul speaks of a mystery it is something that before Christ was hinted at, but now is fully revealed in Christ. It never refers to something new, never before seen in scripture, and completely imperceptible even to the Priest performing the ceremony!

Yet Paul speaks of a mystery, the similarity between the unity of Christ and his church, as between a man and a woman. So when you speak of the union, in two becoming one flesh, you are speaking of a mystery, which cannot fully be understood, even by the priest in performing the ceremony.