John Zmirak (apparently no relation to Zrim) has frustrations remarkably similar to mine. Liberal Roman Catholics and Protestants together:
Q: Do you think that Vatican II taught heresy when it said that the use of coercion by the state in matters of religion is a violation of natural law—you know, like sodomy or (even worse) contraception?
A: Vatican II was a merely pastoral council, which must be interpreted in the light of sacred tradition, not in a hermeneutic of discontinuity.
Q: Are you saying that the state’s right to torture and execute Protestants is an infallible truth of faith or morals, which the bishops of the Church and Pope Paul VI somehow failed to recognize when they issued Dignitatis Humanae? So the Society of St. Pius X is right, and Pope Benedict XVI was defending heresy when he refused to accept them back into communion unless they acknowledged this point?
A: Dignitatis Humanae is a profoundly ambiguous document. It is hard to tell what it means, if it means anything at all. Remember that it states that the Council maintains the traditional teaching about the “duties of societies” toward the true religion.
Q: Are you a totalitarian? You know, along the lines of Benito Mussolini, who proclaimed, “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”?
A: Of course not. Mussolini was an anti-clerical, whose father was a Freemason.
Q: You do realize that only totalitarians equate “society” and “state.” The classical definition of society includes the family and all sorts of other voluntary associations—including the Church, but also clubs, fraternities, labor unions, and the whole rich fabric of what political scientists call “civil society.” When the Council Fathers wrote that “society” owed allegiance to the truth, they were stating a simple fact—that everyone ought to acknowledge the kingship of Christ. They were not saying that people who didn’t fulfill this duty deserved to be tortured until they confessed, then burned at the stake and put into prison. Since in the same document the bishops of the Church, with papal approval, said that using state coercion to override people’s consciences violated the natural law—again, like adultery or perjury—isn’t it disrespectful of a universal council of the Church to assume that their statement was meaningless, or self-contradictory, or some piece of public relations that the Church would later stuff into the memory hole?
A: You are engaged in a neo-Catholic apologetic for the Americanist Catholicism of the 1950s which no longer exists, and which led directly to abortion on demand, homosexual “marriage,” and the radical imbalance of wealth in America that denies proper compensation to those who teach the liberal arts.
Q: Who would you call the authoritative interpreter of the Council—the popes who presided over it and those who came after it, and the Catechism they published? Or a network of bloggers?
A: Perhaps we serve the role of the faithful laity, which also preserved the Church from Arianism in the time of St. Athanasius.
Q: Did a Church council ever teach Arianism?
A: No.
Q: Was the only opponent of Arianism a band of schismatically consecrated bishops and illicitly ordained priests?
A: There’s a first time for everything.
Q: What confuses me is the fact that you point to the American vision of freedom as the greatest danger to the Church, when in fact the Church’s enemies are throwing that vision of freedom onto the trash heap, in order to hasten the persecution of the Church—and the Church’s friends are citing such freedom in the Church’s defense.
A: The American notion of freedom is profoundly corrupt, and lies at the heart of all the evils we face today.
Q: Is there an alternative political theory out there that anyone, anyone at all outside of infinitesimal Catholic circles, finds attractive, that would protect the Church’s liberty?
A: That is beside the point.
Q: Hasn’t the Church historically taken whatever is true in the secular world, used it as a common ground by which to approach the unbelievers, and tried to baptize and elevate it—rather than tear it all down and start from scratch in a barren wasteland. Wasn’t Augustine a patriotic Roman citizen? Or did he endorse the barbarian invasions in some text that you have uncovered from secret archives?
A: There is no call for sarcasm. The situation was different then. The Roman state endorsed the use of authority in defense of the Good, but merely had an imperfect vision of the Good. The American system has no notion of the Good at all. It is inherently nihilistic, and ought to collapse. Once it is gone, we can figure out what to construct in its place.
Q: Isn’t the classical liberal notion of freedom an outgrowth of the elevated Christian notion of the person, and the deep moral significance of his freedom and his conscience? Those seem to me like good things that the Romans knew nothing about. Was Pope John Paul II merely deluded when he praised those things in Memory and Identity? Was he being disingenuous when he apologized, on behalf of the Church, for the times that Catholics had violated those goods?
A: None of those statements by Pope John Paul II were infallible.
To Bryan’s credit, he is not so Americanist. But he is like this catechumen, thanks to the wonders of logic, elusive. Some call it hair-splitting, others Jesuitical.
(Thanks to our southern correspondent for the image.)
Old Life 
Just once, I want a Roman Catholic to come here and explain in short, plain terms, what Vat II means for the lay catholic sitting in the pew.
But don’t mind me. If anyone needs me (ha), I’ll be singing hymns in the church Machen founded, talking golf during the coffee break with chums. Speaking of which, anyone available this weekend (wink?).
Peace out.
LikeLike
AB,
I’d say it was the Church talking in terms that anyone can hear today. Have a read of the docs yourself. They aren’t hard to understand. Start with the Dogmatic Constitutions, like Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium.
LikeLike
Reminds me of the times I get to watch someone get a parking ticket and the enforcement officer is not paying any attention to what is being offered as an excuse, even when it is a very good reason, like their child was burned badly in an accident and they didn’t have time to find change to get the child to the Emergency Door.
The officer is trained to be in a frame of mind not giving any care at all to the other party, just saying “here’s your ticket…. here’s your ticket…”
LikeLike
MichaelTX, I’m all ears. I’m still working on figuring out Anonymous Christians, personally:
LikeLike
It was a call to live the life God calls us to and to try and do it in a way our world can see. To believe the Word of God. To understand the teachings of the Church and to love our neighbors as ourselves. To become open to our fellow but separated baptised Christians. It was a call to holiness. Specifically read Lumen Gentium Chp 4.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
LikeLike
But what of my father in the faith, Martin Luther, Michael? Don’t you have a Bull on that?
You know the drill..
LikeLike
Look, Bryan and I had a nice chat one Sunday afternoon. He’s nice, sure. But evasive. He had an answer for my every point on our call together. It’s amazing. The pod bay doors would not open, I’m telling you..
LikeLike
MTX, but did Vat 2 do anything? Or was it just so many words?
LikeLike
Hart,
Agreed. But sometimes a lot of words need to be said. Not all of them are for each of us. Which is why when AB ask for a plain terms for the Catholic in the pew I piped up and pointed him to the two areas most helpful. One of which insist of the infalliblity of Scripture(well needed to day) the other written to the layman.
I got to go fellas. Peace
LikeLike
AB,
Read a little of the article. Check out “Dominus Iesus” for a magisterial answer.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
LikeLike
MTX, thanks for the attempt. I’ll see about that chapter 4 you pointed me to. But in case you were wondering, we ain’t budging. Your move.
Grace and peace.
LikeLike
Not a big deal AB,
My Granpa use to say… Each tub sits on its own bottom, so also must each man stand on his own feet.
LikeLike
Michael, my grandpa’s known to be given to crude pope jokes. He doesn’t hold back on eeeeeeevangelicals either. He makes me laugh, tho.
Good quote from him, friend. Peace.
LikeLike
“Not all of them are for each of us.” — so I need not be troubled with the “whole counsel of Rome”? What a relief.
LikeLike
I would call this being slippery as an eel, were it not an infamous insult to eels everywhere.
LikeLike
Andrew B,
Which of your questions did I ever evade, either online, or on the phone?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Hi Bryan,
I had a feeling you might chime in on this one.
Rather than drag Darryl’s blog (although of course this thread is all about YOU) about yours and my conversations, we had a nice chat back in January or so, and I explained to you a quote from a mainline episcopal friend, who, when we realized that our positions (mine upholding the Doctrine of Scripture, his, upholding the views expressed by Paul Tillich) were incompatible, told me to, and I quote, bloom where I was planted. You then introduced a new term to me, namely, indifferentism. Now, maybe this wasn’t evasive, but it certainly wasn’t getting to the heart of the point I was making, about what my friend was telling me.
If you want more of my words, you know where to find me. I have sufficiently expressed my opinions on various threads at CTC, including the one that Darryl listed here. I look forward to futher theology discussions with you. You are free to disagree with me on my claiming you were evasive. The fact is, I do not know you, although I wouldn’t mind a round of golf (on me) someday. You should simply get an honest person’s assessment as they react to the thought you have put out, now, for many years, on your various blogs. I have nothing against you. But if I were you, I would enjoy hearing from one as me: a committed confessional protestant.
I’ll not be writing any more on this thread. Floor is yours, Bryan.
Take care.
LikeLike
“Just once, I want a Roman Catholic to come here and explain in short, plain terms, what Vat II means for the lay catholic sitting in the pew.”
For me, Vatican II was a clear and meaningful account of the Church’s relationship to Scripture, tradition, history, and culture. It was a catechetical event that made sense of a lot of disparate threads in Catholic tradition. It was an attractive invitation to join that tradition, which I did. Like every council in history, it is possible to read the documents through a hermeneutic of continuity or discontinuity – just like it’s possible to read the New Testament in continuity or in discontinuity with the Hebrew Tradition (as every Jew will tell you). After every council, there is always a group that cries “innovation” and breaks off to form a “pure” sect. Vatican II is no different. But if the motives of credibility (including the witness of Catholicity – qua propeter securus iudicat orbis terrarum ) dispose you to accept the divine authority of the Church, this is no barrier to faith.
-David
LikeLike
David, I’m not talking any more on this website until the month of May. Just to say, however, thanks for chiming in. I’ll be paying attention from my computer screen here.
Grace and peace, and thank you also, for interacting with me at CTC.
LikeLike
Andrew B,
No, introducing a term that is new to you is not evasion. Nor is not “getting to the heart of the point [you] were making. But in that conversation, if you felt like I wasn’t answering your question, I wonder why you didn’t repeat the question, or call me back, or write me a subsequent email letting me know that I didn’t answer your question.
I’m aware of that. I am unaware, however, of having ever even once evaded a question you asked me.
I agree. That’s what makes strange your accusation that I am evasive.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
Bryan, I’m purposefully (un)muzzling myself. The only other issue we should discuss is the legality of my ordination as deacon. You addressed that in private correspondence as well. I’m willing to discuss more off blog about this issue.
I’ll certainly send you an e-mail to elaborate. That’s the other issue I feel is worth talking about. But of course you are right, I have overstepped bounds here, and for that, I am sorry.
Regards,
ANdrew
LikeLike
Andrew B,
Apology accepted. Thank you. And I’d be glad to discuss ordination with you; you have my number.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
BC, or alternatively, if I blog about it, I’ll let you know. If my ordination is valid, that throws some monkey wrenches into some of the thoughts you’ve laid out in various placed at CtC. I’m not sure I want to create that kind of trouble. I’m busy enough trying to hit the ball straight. Until next time, AB
LikeLike
Andrew Buckingham,
This is not the first time that you’ve been asked to substantiate things you’ve said about others online. It is also not the first time that you have not been able to offer any substantiation whatsoever.
Maybe you should stick to golf.
LikeLike
Why does the Q&A in that Zmirak interview remind me of one of those early 1960’s Gene Rodenberry produced TV episodes of Star Trek where Kirk (no pun intended…well, maybe none, not sure) and company encounter some long pre-established alien intelligence – mostly computerized – and have to argue it down to bare bones logic (Spock approved) in order to get it to release the ship’s prisoners and liberate the respective planet’s misguided inhabitants? Whoops, sorry.
LikeLike
Sean, what do you want? Do you want me to publish my e-mail string with Bryan?
He brought up my ordination over private correspondence.
Is you point here only to attack me and my character? What do you want?
LikeLike
Sean Patrick, I find just a tad ironic that your statements about me are unsubstantiated.
Shame on you.
LikeLike
I want to point out that you have a habit of making claims about others that you are unable to substantiate.
Now, I could substantiate that if you like. We emailed about it a while back when you were making unsubstantiated claims about us. Back then you couldn’t/wouldn’t substantiate those claims either.
Here is the rub Andrew. If you are going to go around making statements about other people, either that they are ‘evasive’ or ‘dishonest’ or ‘misrepressent’ something, you have to be able to back up those assertions.
That is all.
LikeLike
PS. Andrew.
I’ll gladly post those emails here right now but I shouldn’t have to.
My claim about you is that you make claims about others that you cannot substantiate. What more proof do we need than your comments about Bryan in this very thread? So, I don’t need to substantiate what I’ve said about you unless you want me to. You’re words substantiate what I’ve said to you just fine.
Now, you’ve apologized. Good. I hadn’t seen that before. Now learn from it.
LikeLike
But Sean, for some reason, you don’t substantiate your alleged evidence backing up your claims that I have a history of poor behavior as you have expanded on. Is it so hard to believe that I may also have reasons for not substantiating things when I talk with Bryan?
Why do you interrupt the conversation I was having with Bryan? I thought it was going well, and then you bring up past sins on my part. It does not surprise me that you have some record of my wrongs, because, after all, I have many faults and have sinned many times. The question is, why do you bring this up?
LikeLike
Which words?
I post no more here, for reals. This is dumb to make this about me. Stop it, Sean. You can talk to me on my blog if you want to say something to me.
Bye.
LikeLike
The last time we talked, in Dec 2013, you accused Called to Communion of ‘misrepresenting the Reformed position.” I am looking at the email where you wrote that to me. I asked you to demonstrate how we misrepresent the Reformed position and you told me “I don’t need to show you how you are misrepresenting…”
That is the problem, Andrew. You do need to substantiate your claims about others.
I am not interested in bringing up your ‘past sins.’ I am interested, however, in making everybody aware that you like to make claims about others and then refuse to justify those claims. If that makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should stop making claims about others that you cannot substantiate.
LikeLike
Sean, you are wrong. I do not need to show you where people on your blog (authors or commenters) have misrepresented reformed theology, even if I have asserted as such. That’s the job either you or someone at the blog you edit has appointed you to. Please don’t make me do your job for you.
LikeLike
Golly, SP — “Now learn from it.” just won’t do. The accepted way for a papist to sign of around here is “In the peace of….”
LikeLike
Power should serve the eternal Truth. No one who has not studied philosophy, as I have, has any business wielding power.
It’s also what it’s like listening to worldviewers.
LikeLike
Am assertion is made that CTC has been able to get close to 10% accuracy in stating Reformed views ?
Are we on Candid Camera?
LikeLike
kent, give them some credit. They are showing humor, even trying to argue over the best beer:
Another first, after maybe, oh, I dunno, 200+ comments to Bryan, he actually addressed me. And on my birthday, no less. What better present could (all about) I get, than a personalized OL combox note from Dr. Bryan Cross himself. I’d even take his call if he wanted to wish me a happy birthday.
Peace, Caths. And that’s quite enough about me and from me. See you all in May (ha).
LikeLike
Oh, screw it. I had another thought..
Fascinating, at least to me, is the history of these guys who have taken up the task of enumenism from the Roman side, towards us confessional (reformed) protestants. Growing up fundie, Calvin, to me, what a comic strip, and one that I dearly enjoyed (I owned every book, and would re-read them for fun, even had some t-shirts I picked up in Hong Kong, as BW was against merchandising, so black market was the only place to get them).
I digress, but these guys were raised reformed, for the most part, and rejected. Or took reformed theology very far (seminary or PHD studies) and then rejected. For me, finding Calvinism was and still is a very big deal, theologically, as it put fires out in my angry fundie heart. To me, a jump further into the Roman Catholic church is the most unnecessary, and unwarranted thing for anyone to tell me I need to do. It’s highlighted especially to me, because I battled liberalism in my twenties as I sought to settle FOR MYSELF, my mind, as regards conservative protestantism, as that where I was finding myself since I was 19, in the OPC and all. I’ve gone on far too long here. But those of us who TRULY appreciate reformed theology, we do not quit. We know our system is not perfect, so we work to improve it, and we work to make it real in the lives of people in our churches. The CTC project was winsome, but utterly flawed from the get-go. It was stacked with Roman Catholics, and is therefore just another propaganda machine for those of a Roman persuasion. With Machen, I encourage them to keep their propoganda going. Just don’t expect us NOT to call, a spade, a spade. What can I say, Sean Patrick inspried me. I normally wouldn’t call things like I seem ’em.
Come back anytime, you Roman Catholics. We have the beer waiting for ya, and it’s cold as
my cold calvinist heartice.Nya nya..
LikeLike
“The CTC project was winsome, but utterly flawed from the get-go. It was stacked with Roman Catholics, and is therefore just another propaganda machine for those of a Roman persuasion.”
The oldlife project was winsome, but utterly flawed from the get-go. It was stacked with 2k-er paleo-Calvinists, and is therefore just another propaganda machine for those of a 2k paleo-Calvinist persuasion.
LikeLike
David, “After every council, there is always a group that cries “innovation” and breaks off to form a “pure” sect.”
Was that the Jesuits at Trent?
LikeLike
AB, you can run, but you can’t hide from THE CAAAALLLLLLLERRRRRRS.
LikeLike
Sean, at least we have a position to misrepresent. Swimming through your magisterium and Denzinger takes a rocket scientist.
LikeLike
vd, c, no one said OL was a call to anyone. I don’t do apologetics and I sure don’t fake “ecumenism.” If you can’t tell the difference between CTC and OL, I may have figured out why you fell for the Bishop of Rome.
LikeLike
The
oldlifeCleuts project was winsome, but utterly flawed from the get-go. It wasstacked with 2k-er paleo-CalvinistsJames Young defending the religion of his youth, and is therefore just another propaganda machine for those of a2k paleo-Calvinisttv show impersonation fettish persuasion.By the way, Captain America is a fun movie, Cleat. Go see it with the Missus, it’s rad.
hashtag fun_with_html, hashtag yo hashtag emoticon
LikeLike
Darryl,
The point is you have a perspective here you advance in the posts (e.g. your constant nuking of non-2kers and Keller, TGC, BBs, etc.) as well as in the comments with any non-2k neo-Cals who are unlucky enough to stroll on through. CtC has a perspective too. Not news. The fact that both projects have different aims is immaterial to the criticism of “stacking” and “propaganda” Andrew decries yet inconsistently applies.
Or are your posts and comments not meant to actually maybe convince/sway anyone to your perspective, or at least justify your perspective, or strengthen those who share it? If not, seems you might as well just write in a diary.
Andrew,
I saw Cap. It was good.
LikeLike
Darryl, Yusssss, beware.
Handy artwork on the image for this post. It brought the finest into
ouryour playground, here.See you in May.
LikeLike
Darryl,
Sean, at least we have a position to misrepresent. Swimming through your magisterium and Denzinger takes a rocket scientist.
But it gives the the RCs around here great comfort that someone, somewhere CAN infallibly swim through it. As long as someone CAN do it who cares if they even WANT to do it?
LikeLike
Darryl: “I don’t do apologetics”
Me: That is pretty obvious from your posts on this site or at CtC. I kind of wonder why you don’t “do apologetics.” Instead, what you do more often than not is attack someone else (and usually it’s not their arguments). A large proportion (though, not the majority) of your posts are attacks on Brian. That goes for most of Chortles’ comments, too. If you guys don’t do apologetics, why would anyone want to follow your version of Calvanism, because you don’t make any reasons FOR it (apologetics) and you are demeaning to anyone who doesn’t hold to it (ex. Dr. Bryan Cross). What kind of witness of Christ is that?
Anthony
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted April 17, 2014 at 9:23 pm | Permalink
“The CTC project was winsome, but utterly flawed from the get-go. It was stacked with Roman Catholics, and is therefore just another propaganda machine for those of a Roman persuasion.”
The oldlife project was winsome, but utterly flawed from the get-go. It was stacked with 2k-er paleo-Calvinists, and is therefore just another propaganda machine for those of a 2k paleo-Calvinist persuasion.
The difference being that the Called to Catholicism bunch doesn’t distort or mock, and answers all questions forthrightly. [Shame for alleging otherwise, Andrew.]
D. G. Hart
Posted April 17, 2014 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
vd, c, no one said OL was a call to anyone. I don’t do apologetics and I sure don’t fake “ecumenism.” If you can’t tell the difference between CTC and OL, I may have figured out why you fell for the Bishop of Rome.
Dr. Dirty Mouth seldom defends. His religion is built around attack–not about what it is, but what it negates. A religion with no apologetics, only piss. A completely derivative religion, parasitical in the way satire cannot exist without sincerity to feed upon.
The original Zmirak piece was quite enjoyable, true to the Thomistic tradition, illustrating both sides honestly. It would be fun to see you attempt a similar piece–a debate with yourself. Darryl Hart and Darryl Hart would end up calling each other liars…and they’d be right!
LikeLike
Guys, it’s a theology blog. Prots and Caths have been doing this since Hus and Wycliffe. People who have been here over a year (hello: Thomas, follower of Thomas) play stupid, expecting us to do all the work.
Anthony, my experience is Darryl is reacting to an agressive internet evangelism effort led by former reformed who advertise themselves as the ones to explain reformed theology to the masses, when they should simply point people to actual reformed writers, except their agenda is to add more to their flock as is the agenda of all, but since God holds his sheep in His hand, never to be snatched, we fear not, and enjoy the back and forth over our smartphones on these interwebs, waiting for the next person we haven’t heard from (you), in the hope of finding an interesting conversant (or as Bono says, ”im just trying to find…a decent melody”.
And I haven’t even had a beer yet on this, my bday #32. Whoa.
See you all in June.
LikeLike
Darryl, dude, I think you just won the lottery:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/steven-spielberg-tony-kushner-edgardo-mortara-1201157963/
LikeLike
Cletus, Prophetic, no?
Thanks. I was reading Metzer “Pope and Mussolini.”
PS books beat movies like rock beats scissors. But you already know that..
Cap was indeed good.
LikeLike
*
MetzerKertzerLikeLike
Tom, in conclusion (since you mentioned my name)..
The image of this post says it all. The CtC way is to lump all protestants together as Mormons and J-dubs. I can’t tell you how often they use that tactic over e-mail and blog combox. Do you want me to break it down further? You know I can and will. You know where to find me and my blog. I’m done here because I’m not needed. Adios.
LikeLike
Cletus van Damme
Posted April 17, 2014 at 11:10 pm | Permalink
Darryl, dude, I think you just won the lottery:
http://variety.com/2014/film/news/steven-spielberg-tony-kushner-edgardo-mortara-1201157963/
Heh heh. The child Edgardo ends up becoming a Catholic priest, and after he learns his strange history, chooses to remain a Catholic priest.
Is that not correct, Dr. Hart? I have tried to follow your
rantingsreports on this story and to confirm them independently. Your facts of the affair have been correct as far as I know.What do they mean? Gay playwright/activist Tony Kushner [“Angels in America”] and Steven Spielberg [“Schindler’s List,” who refused to edit its non-gratuitous nudity for Muslim consumption].
Shall we add to the list of experts the baldly anti-Catholic Darryl Hart to tell the story true? Your money or your life?
As Jack Benny asked, give me some time. I’m thinking it over!
LikeLike
vd, c, OL has an aim, CTC has an aim. OL has humor, CTC doesn’t. OL criticizes Reformed Protestants. CTC defends the Callers’ rational autonomous choice to give up rational autonomous choices. But OLers breath oxygen, as do CTC. I see your point.
LikeLike
Anthony, polemics is different from apologetics. Doing polemics as polemics is deceitful — aka Bryan Cross and Jason Stellman.
LikeLike
vd, t, piss vs. piss? Talk about dirty.
Memo to Tom: bathroom humor has to be very clever to be funny to anyone over 26.
LikeLike
vd,c, I can’t think of a worse director. Wait. I just did. Ron Howard.
Thanks.
BTW, David Kertzer has a new book on the papacy. I bet you’re holding your breath until I start reading and posting.
LikeLike
AB steals my thunder. Return it, please.
LikeLike
Returned.
I’m done combing CtC and OL comboxes. But lastly, D. Anders, and CtCers here, we read you guys, you read us. We all want the same thing for prot/cath dialogue, to be fruitful, kind, and something we aren’t embarressed by when the world looks in and sees how we do it.
Adios.
LikeLike
CvD, um, plus it’s called a journal, as in Nicotine Theological. Diaries are what girls write.
LikeLike
Anthony, sorry — the CtC project is offensive on its face to Old Lifers. It is humorless and sterile, and it sanitizes Romanist history and today’s version of the RCC. I’m here to skewer the skewerable (Reformed, “Calvinistic” or nouveau Rome), not engage in endless point-by-point refutations or recruit. The heart of the matter is the place of scripture and whether you worship in an idolatrous worship way or not. It’s a lot simpler than Prof. Cross would make it out to be.
LikeLike
“You are engaged in a neo-Catholic apologetic for the Americanist Catholicism of the 1950s which no longer exists, and which led directly to abortion on demand, homosexual “marriage,” and the radical imbalance of wealth in America that denies proper compensation to those who teach the liberal arts.”
Nice.
LikeLike
What the heck was that yesterday?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted April 18, 2014 at 6:01 am | Permalink
vd, c, OL has an aim, CTC has an aim. OL has humor, CTC doesn’t. OL criticizes Reformed Protestants. CTC defends the Callers’ rational autonomous choice to give up rational autonomous choices. But OLers breath oxygen, as do CTC. I see your point.
The Called to Catholicism guys have sincerity and they have intellectual honesty. They are patient, and they are kind. Word up.
And what you call “humor” isn’t. Word up on that too. Jews are funny. Catholics are funny. Calvinists are not funny–except of course to each other.
http://www.tateville.com/preshumor.html
LikeLike
vd, t, “The Called to Catholicism guys have sincerity and they have intellectual honesty. They are patient, and they are kind. Word up.”
Doing theology again. Or is this “scholarship”?
LikeLike
The Callers are the most intellectually honest evaders and obfuscators I’ve ever seen.
Too bad their honesty, patience, and kindness aren’t enough to get Tom to go to church.
LikeLike
@Tom
Dude. You are seriously delusional. They can be quite nasty. Which is why I generally advise people to read but not interact whenever I post about CtC stuff on other forms.
And I certainly don’t think the CtCers have intellectual honesty. Far too often when they’ve been caught in simple matters of fact they resort to ad hominem or censorship rather than admit the problem. If they had intellectual honesty there would be much more nuance and less evasion in the presentation.
LikeLike
CD-Host
Dude. You are seriously delusional. They can be quite nasty. Which is why I generally advise people to read but not interact whenever I post about CtC stuff on other forms.
Tom apparently thinks that if you sign off everything in the peace of Christ, you’re transparent and honest. No dishonest person or obfuscator would ever, you know, say such a thing.
LikeLike
CD-Host,
I’ve come to respect your opinion on many matters. Give us your objective evaluation of Tom. Did he get kicked in the head by a horse as a kid or is there a more logical explanation?
LikeLike
Welcome back CD, please post a lot more often
LikeLike
Kent,
Nice “Mad Men” episode tonight. We may be treated to a story of redemption. Time will tell.
LikeLike
kent, I thought OL was only for gh, d’s sycophants. Love me.
LikeLike
CD Host.
Speaking about the ‘callers’ you said, “Far too often when they’ve been caught in simple matters of fact they resort to ad hominem or censorship rather than admit the problem.”
By all means, link up some examples where the ‘callers’ have been caught with matters of fact and resorted to ad hominem and/or censorhip. Lets see your proof.
LikeLike
Sean, why so defensive? If CTC has censored, it would be in good company.
LikeLike
Sean, doubleplusgood
LikeLike
I disagree heartily with the apologetic project at CtC and I agree that they obfuscate issues, but I am not sure that CtC resorts to censorship or ad homs. I, like Sean, would need to see proof of that.
LikeLike
@Sean
Sorry didn’t see this comment (no comment email). We’ve had this dialogue several times I think more than once on here. I’ll link to two comments on my blog where I gave some examples involving other people:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/05/review-of-called-to-communion.html?showComment=1330007023991#c6588594704969570213
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/05/review-of-called-to-communion.html?showComment=1330007113501#c2494859634712096677
I can give a bunch more examples.
That being said… an example would be this thread regarding the vulgate’s canon (link) I presented overwhelming evidence that the Catholic canon, at least as understood by the Catholic population had changed. As I had presented overwhelming evidence for this it shifted to a personal attack… “This forum is for sincere inquiry and dialogue, not for anonymous persons to make jokes at the expense of the Catholic Church, and our time.” Anonymous persons maybe but it is pointing back to a well known bible blogger. “Not sincere” I run a religious blog?
The whole thing is ridiculous.
You can find this sort of behavior on just about every thread.
LikeLike
@Sean —
I’m going to stop checking this now. So if you do ever respond then post somewhere else like a thread I’m active yet or better yet my blog and let me know.
LikeLike
Very very very good book, that. I think this is one Oldlifers would much enjoy. Metzer has become one of my new favorite authors. And I’m only on chapter four..
LikeLike