Question to FORMER Catholics and ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Krush2k2' date='Jan 9 2005, 02:00 PM'] I always ask this to those who have turned away from the church and can never seem to get a straight answer. Since you were once part of the Catholic church-how do you now view OUR LADY OF FATIMA(thousands of witnesses) AND the Stigmata of Padre Pio? It seems to me you cant argue against it and find a way to explain why that happened and the Catholic church to not be the one true church-as it is. Explain that to me [/quote]
Those miracles were from the Devil - the prince of lies made them happen to lure people away from Jesus Christ.

And before anyone brings up Matt 12:24, I am not speaking a word against [i]Christ[/i] healing anyone by the Holy Spirit. I am speaking a word against people who have apostasied from the Holy Gospel - apostate men and women, not Christ - performing such 'wonders'.

Edited January 15, 2005 by ICTHUS

[Krush2k2]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 02:19 PM'] Those miracles were from the Devil - the prince of lies made them happen to lure people away from Jesus Christ.
[/quote]
Padre Pio's Stigmata converted thousands of atheists into Christians. Good job Devil

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Krush2k2' date='Jan 15 2005, 02:31 PM'] Padre Pio's Stigmata converted thousands of atheists into Christians. Good job Devil [/quote]
Romans Catholics =/= Christians

[ICTHUS]

I can't seem to edit my post above. However, I would say that the vast majority of Roman Catholics aren't Christians. There are some thoughtful ones who actually do have a living, vibrant faith in Jesus who may be. But most probably aren't.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 09:35 PM'] I can't seem to edit my post above. However, I would say that the vast majority of Roman Catholics aren't Christians. There are some thoughtful ones who actually do have a living, vibrant faith in Jesus who may be. But most probably aren't. [/quote]
Define a Christian.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='RandomProddy' date='Jan 15 2005, 02:42 PM'] Define a Christian. [/quote]
One who rests in and trusts Jesus Christ alone for his salvation from sin and safekeeping to Heaven, and who affirms entirely and in their whole, the teachings that the Church has set forth in the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostles Creeds*.

*While I acknowledge that some in Christendom have n'eer even heard of these, I submit that most would, upon examination of them, assent to their teachings, and that those who would not, upon examination of the same and competent explanation of any unclear parts, are not members of the Universal Church.

Edited January 15, 2005 by ICTHUS

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 15 2005, 03:42 PM'] will this work?

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/phatcatholic/fbcgirls.jpg[/img] [/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

This thread needs direction.

The challenge more specifically from those guys to us formers is to determine whether or not these types of miracles happen outside of the Catholic Church.

We as formers should bring compiling evidence. I think I can just say that there are miracle healings outside of the Catholic Church and no one would disagree, thought I will get some proof.

We as formers should get evidence of apparitions to prots. I can't think of any off hand.

The stigmata I can't think of any for us either.

Plus even if we found stuff, they'd just say it's so that we'll be led to the "truth". Not that I'm saying we don't even try, I think we should be able to make a case one way or another. I will look aroung for stuff.

Edited January 15, 2005 by dairygirl4u2c

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 03:33 PM'] Romans Catholics =/= Christians [/quote]
:thatsfunny:

[raptor13]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 02:44 PM'] One who rests in and trusts Jesus Christ alone for his salvation from sin and safekeeping to Heaven, and who affirms entirely and in their whole, the teachings that the Church has set forth in the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostles Creeds*.
[/quote]
The irony here, of course, is that it was the Catholic Church that created and upheld these Creeds.

[cathqat]

Another irony is that his definition of a Christian, which he claims excludes most Catholics, would apply to [i]all[/i] Catholics who actually believe and practice the Catholic faith.

If he wants to say that nominal, unbelieving, or heretical Catholics are not "really" Christians, I have no argument. But [i]every[/i] faithful Catholic "trusts Jesus Christ alone for his salvation from sin and safekeeping to Heaven," and "affirms entirely and in their whole, the teachings that the Church has set forth in the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostles Creeds." All true Catholics fit his definition of a Christian.

It is interesting, however, that his definition of a Christian might exclude some of our Eastern Orthodox brothers who suspect that the pro-[i]filioque[/i] elements of the Athanasian Creed may express heresy. But I think those Eastern Orthodox brothers are Christians.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 15 2005, 05:29 PM'] Another irony is that his definition of a Christian, which he claims excludes most Catholics, would apply to [i]all[/i] Catholics who actually believe and practice the Catholic faith.

If he wants to say that nominal, unbelieving, or heretical Catholics are not "really" Christians, I have no argument. But [i]every[/i] faithful Catholic "trusts Jesus Christ alone for his salvation from sin and safekeeping to Heaven," and "affirms entirely and in their whole, the teachings that the Church has set forth in the Athanasian, Nicene, and Apostles Creeds." All true Catholics fit his definition of a Christian.

It is interesting, however, that his definition of a Christian might exclude some of our Eastern Orthodox brothers who suspect that the pro-[i]filioque[/i] elements of the Athanasian Creed may express heresy. But I think those Eastern Orthodox brothers are Christians. [/quote]
No - I don't believe it would. I added the word 'alone' after 'trusts Jesus Christ' because many, many Roman Catholics trust Mary, a priest, and other people, to the detriment of Christ, to enable them to persevere to Heaven.

Edited January 15, 2005 by ICTHUS

[cmotherofpirl]

Shall we talk about the protestents who worship their pastors and TV evengelists?

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Jan 15 2005, 06:34 PM'] Shall we talk about the protestents who worship their pastors and TV evengelists? [/quote]
Sure. Which ones are those? IF there are any, I would hesitate to call them "Protestants".

I defy you to find me one congregation in a conservative, mainstream church where this is the case.

Edited January 15, 2005 by ICTHUS

[cathqat]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 06:07 PM'] I added the word 'alone' after 'trusts Jesus Christ' because many, many Roman Catholics trust Mary, a priest, and other people, to the detriment of Christ, to enable them to persevere to Heaven. [/quote]
You only believe that the word "alone" excludes Catholics because you subject your understanding of the Bible and Christian theology to a nominalist philosophical framework, and probably unconsciously. Nominalist philosophy is clearly the root of this absurd idea.

As I did more than once before, I strongly recommend that you read [i]The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism[/i] by Louis Bouyer. The book is a critically engaged yet generously sympathetic analysis of the Protestant Reformation by a Lutheran who converted to Catholicism. In the first half he praises the key positive principles of the Reformation, showing how they are good, true, and fundamentally Catholic. In part two he shows how those same great principles have been continuously and inevitably undermined by and among the Reformers (and their heirs) as a result of Protestantism's failure to properly critique and throw off the nominalistic philosophical framework of the late medieval period. He clearly explains how the positive principles of the Reformation and Protestantism can only be sustained and flourish within the Catholic Church. Whether Protestant or Catholic, all should read this book. It is absolutely crucial to understanding what unites & divides Protestants and Catholics, and how to preserve untainted the truths we hold most dear.

(I also recommend chapters 14 & 15 of Servais Pinckaers' [i]The Sources of Christian Ethics[/i]. Very enlightening.)

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 15 2005, 06:44 PM'] It is absolutely crucial to understanding what unites & divides Protestants and Catholics, and how to preserve untainted the truths we hold most dear.

(I also recommend chapters 14 & 15 of Servais Pinckaers' [i]The Sources of Christian Ethics[/i]. Very enlightening.) [/quote]
But this is impossible. The things that Protestants hold dear (such as the Holy Gospel), Rome anathematizes. There can no be agreement. There can be no communion. Only bitter conflict until the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, when He will trample the Popish usurpers under His feet.

[cathqat]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 06:55 PM'] But this is impossible. The things that Protestants hold dear (such as the Holy Gospel), Rome anathematizes. [/quote]
Again, you only believe that because you subject your understanding of the Gospel to a false nominalistic philosophical framework.

If you are unwilling to consider how that late medieval philosophy, which frankly did not exist at the time the scriptures were written, has negatively impacted your theology, then there's little more to say. It would mean you put nominalist philosophy above and before the Gospel itself.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Jan 15 2005, 04:19 PM'] Those miracles were from the Devil - the prince of lies made them happen to lure people away from Jesus Christ.

And before anyone brings up Matt 12:24, I am not speaking a word against [i]Christ[/i] healing anyone by the Holy Spirit. I am speaking a word against people who have apostasied from the Holy Gospel - apostate men and women, not Christ - performing such 'wonders'. [/quote]
It's a shame you haven't studied the miracles, and yet condemn them. Is that the actions of a wise man or of one who loves Christ?

Also, it's good to know the Scriptures. I've been reading them since I was about six. One who loves Christ will read the Scriptures.

The miracles were not of the devil. If you studied them you would know this. These miracles brought people to Christ. These miracles claimed that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. These miracles claimed that Christ is our salvation.

Are you too lazy to study or do you not care about what the Truth is?

[b]1 John 4:1[/b]
Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
[b]2 [/b]This is how you can know the Spirit of God: e[b]very spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, [/b]
[b]3 [/b]and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.


If you believe that these miracles are of the devil, then you are saying that the Scriptures are wrong.


If you want to be right, you'll have to be Catholic. If you were Catholic and knew where to find the answers (basically Scripture, ECF, and Catechism) no one would be able to prove you wrong... because they wouldn't be really trying to prove you wrong, but they would be trying to prove the Infallible Church that Christ established wrong which cannot be done.

The reason why you had so much "trouble" defending the Church against mustbe/circle (whoever it was) is because you tried to defend without the knowledge of the Church - that is if you ever really were Catholic. You tried to defend what you didn't know, and didn't know where to find the answers. You relied on yourself instead of the wisdom of the Church.... if you want to be right, come home to the Church that Christ established.


It's sad that you are always wrong Ichy... especially when if you studied, you could be right.

I want you to be right. I pray that one day you will.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 15 2005, 07:00 PM'] Again, you only believe that because you subject your understanding of the Gospel to a false nominalistic philosophical framework.

If you are unwilling to consider how that late medieval philosophy, which frankly did not exist at the time the scriptures were written, has negatively impacted your theology, then there's little more to say. It would mean you put nominalist philosophy above and before the Gospel itself. [/quote]
Whatever are you talking about?

[ICTHUS]

Hi Ironmonk. Nice to see your up and at 'em with your shotgun-style apologetics.

[quote]Are you too lazy to study or do you not care about what the Truth is?

[b]1 John 4:1[/b]
Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
[b]2 [/b]This is how you can know the Spirit of God: e[b]very spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God, [/b]
[b]3 [/b]and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world.[/quote] I confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

[quote]If you believe that these miracles are of the devil, then you are saying that the Scriptures are wrong.[/quote] How is that?

[quote]If you want to be right, you'll have to be Catholic. If you were Catholic and knew where to find the answers (basically Scripture, ECF, and Catechism) no one would be able to prove you wrong... because they wouldn't be really trying to prove you wrong, but they would be trying to prove the Infallible Church that Christ established wrong which cannot be done.[/quote] If you want to be right, you'll have to give up all the unbiblical lies that Rome has taught you. If you were Reformed and did not have to try to force the Scriptures to conform to your doctrines, rather than allowing your doctrine to conform to the Scriptures, no one would be able to prove you wrong, because they wouldn't really be trying to prove you wrong, they would be trying to prove the Lord Jesus Christ wrong, which cannot be done.

[quote]The reason why you had so much "trouble" defending the Church against mustbe/circle (whoever it was) is because you tried to defend without the knowledge of the Church - that is if you ever really were Catholic. You tried to defend what you didn't know, and didn't know where to find the answers. You relied on yourself instead of the wisdom of the Church.... if you want to be right, come home to the Church that Christ established. [/quote] No - this is not the case. In fact, on the boards in which I moderated I was commonly regarded as the most knowlegeable Roman apologist there. If you read my debates with John (Mustbenothing) on CGR you will see that I knew what I was talking about. However, the constant exegetical leaps of logic that I was being required to take as a Roman Catholic became too much for me. I pray that you, too, would see that such leaps are unjustifiable.

Edited January 16, 2005 by ICTHUS