|
Divine_Mercy
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Patrick
Country: United States
State: Illinois
Gender: Male
Interests: I'm not that interested in theology- yes, I know more than most, but I really don't care. What gets me fired up are miracles, great works in His name and the disciplines of a Godly man. I'm interested in making effort to getting in that narrow gate.
Expertise: I'm actually pretty killer at drawing.
Occupation: Other
Message: message me
AIM:  HolyFireFarewell
Member Since:
4/10/2006
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| The Quotable Theologians I've debated as to what I should do with this blog. For a fleeting moment I thought of turning this into a collection of the wiser sayings over Xanga. Especially the debates found on Saint_Athanasius, Mysterium, Mr. Jargon and friends. While I don't think I'll actually make a point of doing it, I have taken the initiative (for this post at least) in penning some highlights I've read today. An interesting idea would be to summarize debates going on here for the lazy reader. But not for today...
The Blah-blah-blah's and all that jazz, these aren't necessarily original, I acknowledge that just because Joe-schmoe posted something he might not have actually noticed it, he copied S. Athanasius or someone; asterisks are a rating (no limit to them):
Today's quote forerunner belongs to Mr. Jargon, although Orthodox, posted an insightful commentary on Protestantism, you can see the original in Dave AKA MysteriumFidei's blog commentaries:
(*) "The Eucharist is really only Christ's body voluntaristically and
there's a label without any ontological change, that's just like how
imputed righteousness works! They are not really made righteous, just
as the sanctified bread and wine are or cannot really become Christ's
body."
Dave himself had quite an interesting contrast of Ecumenical councils and heretical rejection in that same blog commentary page:
(***) "If
there is one thing that begin to stick out to me when looking through
history, it is that every single group who leaves the Church somehow
thinks that they are in some unique situation that was never
justifiable before but is when they do it. The Nestorians looked down
on the Arians for having left the Church and rejecting Her teaching,
but then the Monothelites looked down on the Nestorians for the same
thing. The Anglicans looked down on the Donatists for leaving the
Catholic Church (heaven knows why) and the Old Catholics looked down on
the Anglicans for the same reason. At some point, every heretical sect
had stopped accepting the Church's teaching authority and said, "No
more!"
1) A sedevacantist only recognises 20 Œcumenical Councils.
2) An Old Catholic only recognises 19 Œcumenical Councils.
3) An early Lutheran only recognises 18 Œcumenical Councils.
4) A Hussite only recognises 15 Œcumenical Councils.
5) A Waldensian only recognises 10 Œcumenical Councils.
6) A Petrobruscan only recognises 9 Œcumenical Councils.
7) An Anglican or Eastern Schismatic only recognises 7 Œcumenical Councils.
8) An Iconoclast only recognises 6 Œcumenical Councils.
7) A Monothelite only recognises 5 Œcumenical Councils.
9) A Refomed Episcopalian only recognises 4 Œcumenical Councils.
10) A Monophysite only recognises 3 Œcumenical Councils.
11) A Nestorian only recognises 2 Œcumenical Councils.
12) A Reformed Protestant only recognises 1 Œcumenical Council.
13) An Arian/Evangelical/Seventh-Day Adventist/Jehovah's Witness/Mormon/Mohammaden recognises no Œcumenical Councils.
They
all have something in common - at one point in history, they left the
Catholic Church and the jurisdiction of the Holy Father in Rome."
Servitus posted a great while ago in Raymond Spiotta AKA Saint_Athanasius' blog commentaries a very true quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger; don't forget the truth of Vatican II:
(*)"A quote from Cardinal Ratzinger speaking of Vatican II in an address to
the Chilean Bishops on July 13, 1988: "The truth is that this
particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to
remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council." (source: The
Great Facade, by C. Ferrara and T. Woods)"
---
Well, three quotes is pretty sparse. I was hoping to fill this entry a lot more, and perhaps more entries will come. Either that or I'll update this post somewhat often. Hope you enjoy what is there. Peace outz.
| | |
| The most common response I get when I tell people I'm in the midst of converting to Catholicism is a flat-out "why?" Which I find mildly humorous, if not obnoxious. I once heard Juan mention how he's annoyed with people that bluntly ask that question because there are a thousand issues and not one of them too little of importance to mention. Suddenly I had the urge to beg a "Really? You too?"
Sometime in February or March I had the chance to talk to a man named Randall Swiggum, a classical music conductor who is a proffessor at UW-Madison among other accolades, over a dinner at Applebee's. When I mentioned my switch his eyebrows raised with suprise, something I had become familiar with, and of course asked the famous "why?" I think everyone has a right to ask that due to the gravity of such a choice. I told a few reasons, none of them very good, in retrospect. Suddenly he said, "Yeah but I don't see a thesis statement in all that." And a pause hung around as he kinda stared at my fried shrimp basket, and I knew the night was going to be long.
Unfortunately, you can't birth a thesis statement over so large a decision very easily, truth this thick can't be breached with a simple three-point, five-paragraph essay format. Eventually I mumbled something about reading the church fathers and finding their writings undeniable that Catholicism was the true path. It was then he brought up (subtley, I even had to ask him this after he was done talking in order to confirm my suspecting notions) that he truly questions the validity of church fathers; in the end it remained that he thinks the Church destroyed over the two millenias the truth, keeping what it likes and filling in the details of what it needs.
The funny thing being such a gigantic task would have slip-ups, somewhere along the lines the schemes of the religious authority would have been revealed. That sinister Something, like Evolution's missing link, has yet to be discovered. It's funny, because even if that were so, we'd probably have documents of a those now-forgotten, early-church Protestants. Well, we don't. We do know that the Church would burn any heretical documents, like the Gnostics and the Arians, and yet even though those paper-inquisitions are well-known and we know they were carried out, many of their documents have survived. The Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, Mary Magdalene's "writings" and, of course, the newly translated Gospel of Judas, among others; all those have survived. Where did all the Protestants go?
| | |
| I'm sure Scott Hahn would forgive me for the links I just stole from his website:
| | |
| It's been a distance since our last chat... I exhort any and all people (preferriably already Catholic) to check out this site if you have questions, the members there are quite knowledgable and very friendly. Also, if you have difficulty with doctrina/debates, some of the people there are better than Ray (if you can believe me).
I have a glorious two years at evangelical Protestant Gordon College to look forward to. The closer that date comes the less I am excited, due to it's obvious heretical nature. This summer, however, will not be spent researching and gaining knowledge to combate the worst heresy of any time (worse than Arianism). That is well and good, in fact, quite important; but this summer I view I must do something of far greater significance to my soul. I will really, really, really work on rooting out sin and attaining those steps closer to a mystical union with Christ Jesus our Lord. I'm actually getting tingly just thinking about it. I've already started, though not publically. I was truly aided and answered in requesting prayers by Juan Hernandez, a fellow convert too cool for the internet, when he gave me St. Frank's of Sales' (probably from the marketing department) deservedly famous Introduction to the Devout Life and a prayer medal of St. Benedict.
The book by St. Francis de Sales has, as shocking as it is, helped me in my prayer life and understanding faster and more powerfully than even my rosary. Which actually strikes me as odd, but the sheer enormity of my sin and the weight of glory manifest in Christ is truly presented to me in a human way I can relate to. I, of course, am not demeaning the rosary, praying the rosary every day is a good and holy thing, but praying that in conjuction to his book is quite impactful, especially in my development of contrition.
Juan also gave me the prayer medal, which I have noticed since I recieved it two days ago my temptations of the flesh have dropped dramatically. Of course, most readers will find I'm speaking on a "PJT" level (the idea that a hypothetical guy has cancer, tries a million different things, happens to start drinking prune juice and coincidentally the cancer goes into remission; the next thing you know the guy's marketing Prune Juice Therapy to duped Californians), but I attest to the fact that my natural proclevity towards sex has left me and I can actually be on this computer without needing to worry. That is not to say I am not tempted, but these temptations are quite weak and easily overcome, I love it. This power clearly would come from God, who loves his pursuer Benedict and listens to a prayer from him that is betrothed to His holy Will.
I'm also hoping my love and earnesty will gain more converts than simply refuting my "enemies". For that is of some use, but as we know, the greatest of all is a love for God and second is a love for my neighbor. Christians (and I will use that word broadly, to extend even over our seperated brethren) have often been noted as hypocrites. The term is quite true, to be honest, I notice it with myself more than most, don't think I'm excluding or lifting myself before you, but if I can show my roommate and friends the love of Christ most powerfully through me than any others, I might win souls for the kingdom of heaven, something I dearly want to see.
Anyways, summary: I'm interested in devoting this summer especially towards making every effort to fit through the narrow gate. I do not despair (though am tempted to), for we know that Christ loves us back and will use any sign we give as an accredation of our faith, our faith working together with hope and charity. I have begun to see the truth in that (even before conversion I had discovered it, but hadn't understood). And because of Christ's love I am sure that from our signs he will grant us further grace, a lessening of our desire to sin, a buildup of contrition and love of our neighbors. It's funny, this update has gone on too long, but I'm feeling soooo good about myself right now, and emotions make me want to type more than I need/should say. As part of my effort to fit through the narrow gate, I am prepared to become a monk, if it becomes apparent that may be the only way I can stave of Satan's temptations thoroughly.
| | |
| Regarding today's chapel... A lot of people have approached me today asking, "So what did you think of the speaker today?" Obviously thinking that I would be completely inflamed in his lecture. And why shouldn't I be? His sermon clearly regarded to the developing Catholic bomb inside our school. This man, a guy from Geneva, comes along and has the gumption to talk about Protestant doctrine and making oblique references to myself and my friends. So shouldn't I be a bit miffed?
Of course not. In fact, I want to make it very clear I was, or perhaps more correctly, am, the for his sermon. No one at our school knows it but my peer Andrew Leman that it is quite the contrary, I know the man, Jeff Frazier quite well and love him dearly. Not only that, but I discuss theology with him every Sunday at Starbucks to a crowd, and what's more, it was no suprise to me because his lecture was exactly what we had discussed, say, some two months ago. We had chided the Protestant schools for not teaching the fundamentals, and a serious lack of church history.
Which is to open a good, undoubtedly pointed, question: Why don't Protestant schools dish out a healthy serving of church history along with its multitude of other classes: Christian Praise and Worship, Christian Thought and Culture, Old Testament, New Testament, Worldview Studies, Systematic Theology and the most ridiculous of them all: Apologetics. Of course, this church history would and should fit somewhere between those classes, perhaps a good base in Apologetics, then a nice side plate in Christian Thought and Culture and a entreé in Systematic Theology with optional seconds in Worldview. But of course, it's completely absent.
On a related note, today while driving to a resteraunt with a few friends, we were discussing that very issue, himself a Protestant, on why our school offers no church history at all. When I finally asked him he dodged and said, "Honestly, Pat, I just don't care. In fact, you don't care yourself, or at least, you didn't until you became a Catholic."
Well that is a bit false; I became interested about two months prior to my conversion. But it doesn't exactly help his argument. To quote another Protestant friend listening: "Allan, I hate to say it, but you just got boned. Trying to excuse yourself by saying he only became interested after converting does not help make your case." The discussion went on from there. While this minor victory is reassuring, I'm afraid it fell on deaf ears.
A link to the theological n00b, let yourself become accustomed to our church history:
The Shepherd of Hermas
Peace.
| | |
|
