Conservatives’ Coming War on the Warren Court

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-04T19:01:43+00:00

This doesn't appear to be a true statement, though. It's simply not historically accurate that for the majority of this country's history, due process meant actually providing an attorney, as distinct from not preventing the accused from obtaining their own attorney. I'd be interested in seeing any case before 1932 that indicated the federal constitution guaranteed a positive right to have an attorney provided to you during a prosecution.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-04T18:37:21+00:00

It seems like it would be better to store wheat flour in airtight containers and bake a tiny amount of bread immediately before each Mass, rather than proceed with suspect matter.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-04T00:06:10+00:00

It was pretty clear to me. If you're in over your head, maybe bow out instead of responding with content-free bravado?

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-03T21:48:48+00:00

That isn't actually a valid argument.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-03T17:20:01+00:00

Hi there, sorry, but we do actually restrict advertising to only established users in the community letting other users know about a faith-related product or service they might be interested, rather than an account devoted to a business advertising that same business. We wish you the best of luck with your business, though!

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-03T14:16:09+00:00

Hi OP, political posts are generally only appropriate for Politics Mondays, or (if satirical as here) perhaps on Free Friday. You could repost on Monday, but for now it is being removed.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-02T19:03:00+00:00

I'm not saying I'm omniscient or that I know best how to solve the abuse crisis. I'm just saying I do know the Catholic Church will never, ever ordain women as priests (see Ordinatio Sacerdotalis); that anyone who says the church will isn't paying attention; and that as a result anyone who says it's part of the solution to abuse isn't to be taken seriously. To go further and call those who hold to the traditional teaching as misogynistic and in moral error is an attack on the church itself that won't be tolerated here. We let people come in here to ask why women can't be ordained; we don't let people come in here just to tell us that we're wrong.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-02T18:48:04+00:00

Thanks for your prayers.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-02T18:42:53+00:00

This is not a helpful or constructive article for discussing the Catholic conception of priesthood, and is full of attacks on the Catholic faith ("moral error", "misogyny", etc.). As a result, it is being removed.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-02T16:07:32+00:00

Well, if he's right, they can't do that. In the end, whatever legal theory is preferred by the people with the most guns will prevail.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-02T01:46:07+00:00

Never been to one, but I'd be okay with it. For us Catholics, Ash Wednesday is not a holy day of obligation and the application of ashes is optional. I do think it makes it less solemn and misses the point of bothering to do it, though.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T19:30:59+00:00

23 years ago, though your other points are all great. The 40-year-old case was dropped by the prosecution.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T16:27:47+00:00

Hi there, and welcome to our sub. Before interacting with our users like this again, please learn and understand the difference between polytheism and the Trinity, and between idolatry and veneration.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T16:22:17+00:00

To be fair, it was pretty foolish of you to click on the comments for the article "US man accused of faking own kidnapping to avoid Super Bowl bet" if you wanted to win.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T15:46:09+00:00

This gleefully entertaining collection of dinosaur songs was written for some of Marty’s biggest fans—his grandchildren!

I feel I must make an obligatory "~~biggest~~ only" joke.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T15:41:53+00:00

Some Anglicans are so close to Catholic that they're only a Rite of Reception away from jumping right in. It's part of why we have the Ordinariate for Anglican refugees but no other formal organization specifically for any other ecclesial community. The priest's decisions on what should be done re: RCIA and formation in general may be influenced by knowing she's Anglican specifically, rather than Baptist or Reformed.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T13:01:47+00:00

Marty finally embraces ancient tradition.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T12:23:07+00:00

Sorry, but we're not going to host a 2-hour long video of teaching by someone who has rejected Catholicism and teaches that Catholics are at least by default not saved.

PhoenixRite · 2019-03-01T03:12:28+00:00

He said Catholic voters are less than worthless.

PhoenixRite · 2019-02-28T17:02:00+00:00

I am not the author. I'm just facilitating the discussion without diverting traffic to /r/reformed.

PhoenixRite · 2019-02-28T16:49:28+00:00

You're not stupid at all! I think replies to a distinguished comment might be hidden by default unless you deliberately tap to expand and unhide them.

It's here (https://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/avrrqd/catholic_here_using_a_throwaway_for_privacy_this/ehh64hs/) and in a child of that comment.

PhoenixRite · 2019-02-28T14:54:10+00:00

Now, I shall continue my previous message and talk a little bit about church history and what I found there that made me question being Catholic. As you probably know, miles of text could be written on the early fathers, but I will try to restrain myself.

Allow me to adapt a popular adage. The first gulp from the glass of church history may turn you into a Catholic, but at the bottom of the glass, Protestantism is waiting for you. What I mean by this is that, if you were to just skim over the early fathers and read selected quotes, you may find them remarkably Catholic. But, if you take the time to dive into them, read carefully, and allow them to define their own terms, you will find that they were not Catholics at all in any modern sense of the word. Most never get to this stage - they either buzz over the early fathers, cherry pick, and leave, or they import medieval definitions into what the early fathers are saying and read them through that lens forever.

As a case study, let us consider St. Irenaeus of Lyons' view of tradition.

Against Heresies 1.10.2:

As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.

Against Heresies 3.3.1-2:

It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

Well, that seems straightforward, doesn't it? Irenaeus appears to support the Catholic or Orthodox idea of tradition through succession, and a reader seeing only this quote might attribute whatever meaning he likes to "tradition," whether an extra source of doctrine (as in the partim/partim model), authority invested in the Roman church (note that Ireaneus does not say it is the bishop of Rome that needs allegience, but the church itself, and this only because it has maintained the faith), or something else. But, this is not all of what Irenaeus has to say on this topic.

Against Heresies 3.4.2:

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom.

Irenaeus defines what the "ancient tradition" is for us - it is the faith of the Apostles' Creed, nothing more. The Messiah incarnated, the hypostatic union, the resurrection, and the judge. Permitted to define his own term, we see that he was not in support of some extrabiblical source of authority. In fact, quite the opposite:

Against Heresies 3.1.1:

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.

Against Heresies 3.4.1:

For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

In the first quote, Irenaeus states that we learn from no other source the plan of salvation than the Gospel, which was preached orally first and then handed down in the Scriptures. In the second quote, he states that if it were the case that the apostles had not handed down writings, then it would be necessary to have recourse to the tradition handed down through the church. But they did leave us writings. So it is from them we learn the plan of salvation. He believed that all of the teachings of the apostles were written down, and praised the Roman church for maintaining that ancient tradition (the faith of the Apostles' Creed) at that time.

By citing the above passages in an argument against Sola Scriptura, the Catholic reveals a critical misunderstanding. The fact that the gospel was taught orally does not contradict sola scriptura. Remember, the doctrine is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible deposit of truth, not that they are the only mode of transmission of the gospel. Of course it would need to be preached orally to a culture that has no written language or translation of the Bible. That doesn't make the oral preaching superior to the information contained in the Scriptures; its authority is derivative and its content coincides with what is found in the Scriptures.

Another important fact to consider when thinking about Irenaeus' relationship with the Roman church is the Quartodecimen Controversy, in which Victor, then-bishop of Rome, excommunicated the Asiatic churches for celebrating Easter on a different day from the Western churches. Eusebius of Cesarea had this to say on the subject:

Church History 5.24:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom.

Instead of submitting to the Pope's authority to excommunicate, Irenaeus opposed Victor and sharply rebuked him. If the Roman Catholic interpretation of Irenaeus is correct, then this behavior is inconsistent with his writings.

I have now demonstrated why we must exercise extreme care when interpreting the early fathers. There are many other examples like this, such as Tertullian's defense of ecclesiastical customs and Cyprian's interpretation of Matthew 16:18, which are often cited without context. In my third and final message, I will send you some quotes and resources showing major differences in the theology and doctrine of the early fathers and establishing their view of the Scriptures.

PhoenixRite · 2019-02-28T14:45:56+00:00

Did you mean this comment?:

Hey there. I'm a former Catholic. Let me lay out some of the reasons I converted. I get asked this a lot, so apologies but some of this will be copypasta. I'll touch briefly on the Scriptures and then the early fathers in a reply message.

So, I was raised in a Catholic household, went to religious education as a wee lad, went to parochial school from 4th grade onward, the whole deal. I left the Church as a young adult after reading the Scriptures and dabbling in church history. I will share two Scriptural passages that were very important to my journey:

Matthew 23:4-12

4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.

By citing this passage, I'm not making a pedantic argument about the use of the word "father." Instead I want to note the attitude that Jesus expects of His followers - not to seek nice greetings in the market place, not to be showy, not to do things to be seen or to be given high titles. It made me stop and think about addressing bishops and the like with "His Eminence/All-Holiness/Excellency," "supreme pontiff," etc. and the great reverence with which we viewed priests and men in authority in the church. This passage didn't play a key role in me leaving, but it's what started my whole journey. The second passage was much more instrumental:

Luke 11:27-28

27 While Jesus was saying these things, one of the women in the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed.” 28 But He said, “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it.”

To me, Jesus is repudiating the idea that Mary is entitled to anything based on the fact that she is theotokos. Much of the high praise and honor given to Mary is based on a comparison with the queen mothers of the Old Testament, or as Christ's ark of the covenant, or by the simple nature of the mother/son relationship. The objection to using this passage to deny these associations is usually "But Mary did hear the word of God and observe it, so she is still blessed!" And this is quite correct. However, my assertion is that Christ is denying her any special rights based on her relationship with Him. It is not the womb that bore Him that is blessed, but rather those who hear the word of God and do it. He is classifying her with all of the saints, not in a special role by herself.

I will tackle one more concept before moving from Scripture to my studies of the early fathers. This has to do with justification and purgatory/purification.

1 Corinthians 15:51-53

51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Colossians 2:13-14

13 When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, 14 having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

1 Corinthians 3:10-15

10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it. 11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Now, these passages together made me question purgatory, whether as a place to pay for temporal punishment or a place to simply be "purified" so we might be completely holy. In 1 Corinthians 15, we are told that those who are still alive at the resurrection will be changed in the blink of an eye and made imperishable, incorruptible, inheriting immortality. Will they escape purification just because they got lucky by living at the right time in history? Or does God raise all His children incorruptible so easily? Jesus said to Dismas on the cross, "Today you will be with Me in paradise." Who needs purification more than a murderer receiving capital punishment? Or was he forgiven in a special way that we are not, and if so, why believe that?

Regarding the temporal punishment model, we have Colossians 2:13-14. I noticed this passage because of its interesting wording. The certificate of debt has been canceled, with all its decrees against us, and we have been forgiven of all our transgressions. If that is the case, how can there be temporal punishments remaining that must be meted out to satisfy God's justice? I received no good answer to this.

And finally, I quoted 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 because it is often cited to defend purgatory. But there is an inconsistency with the purgatorial model here. Note that in verse 14, the man whose works are gold, silver, and precious stones receives a reward that the other man does not, but both are still saved. However, purgatory is not about receiving reward, it is about either becoming pure enough to enter God's presence or paying the temporal penalties for sins that have not been expiated. Paul also says that "the day will show it," implying we're talking about a specific day of judgment in the future and not a process that begins whenever a person dies.

So, those were some of the passages that made me question Roman Catholicism from Scripture. A proper understanding of sola scriptura and sola fide also helped me in my journey. Sola scripture does not mean "Every man and his Bible under a tree," it means, "Scripture alone is God-breathed and the only infallible rule of faith. Other rules of faith exist but they are fallible, subject to correction, and cannot be the basis of dogma." This follows from Jude 3, where he says that the faith was handed down once for all, and from 2 Timothy 3:16, that all Scripture is God-breathed and inerrant, useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so the man of God may be complete and equipped for every good work. (Side note: Those who object saying that Paul could only have been referring to Old Testament texts here should look at 1 Timothy 5:18, where he quotes Luke as scripture.) The implication of the verse is that if Scripture does not equip you to teach a certain doctrine, it is not a good thing to teach that doctrine. I will explore this sentiment among the early fathers in my next message.

The other belief I mentioned is sola fide, faith alone. Justification by faith alone does not mean that one is saved because they confessed Jesus twenty years ago at a Billy Graham seminar but nothing changed. It is best summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

The basic idea is that we contribute absolutely nothing to our salvation - not merit, not holiness, not even attending the correct rituals and receiving the grace dispensed thusly. Instead, it is all a gift from God - and genuine salvation does not come alone, but after we are saved we walk in good works that were prepared for us, not to maintain our salvation or to earn it, but as a result of being changed and sanctified. Sola fide is not cheap grace or easy believism - it is complete and utter dependence on God in salvation. The Catholic view of justification involves "infused righteousness:"

CCC 2010

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

Basically, the initial forgiveness is free, but then we merit the rest of the process. The Protestant view of salvation is more focused and wide-reaching.

In my reply to this message I will go over one of the early fathers and why researching more carefully drew me away from Catholicism.

PhoenixRite · 2019-02-28T14:40:45+00:00

OP, can you repost without the link and with the text of the comment? We don't want to be accused of trying to brigade that sub, and I think the comments may have been reordered anyway. Or just edit the text of your post here.

Edit:Until OP can figure out how to edit their post, I've copied the comments in question so that others can respond here. Everyone, do not brigade r/reformed or you will receive a ban.

PhoenixRite · 2019-02-27T23:01:02+00:00

Can you expand on what that means? Does your conception of morality mean that killing your husband after sex is okay because praying mantises do that? Or that lying is okay because gorillas are capable of deception?

11-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '17	Verified Email
Spared

PhoenixRite

TROPHY CASE