co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Wednesday, June 11, 2025
Answering Two Protestants
Three Things Catholics need to stop saying
Gospel Simplicity | 11 juin 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kexgWz7UgyI
3:18 Yes and the Anglo-Catholics of the Oxford movement were in fact denying themselves the descriptor Protestants.
An Evangelical "Protestant" cannot take credit for the honesty of an Anglo-Catholic "Protestant" ... it's like if a Commie took credit for the work of Jimmy Carter, because Jimmy Carter, as a Democrat, could also be labelled a "Leftist"
I happen to know the Oxford Movement because John Henry Newman described it with affection after leaving it for Catholicism. Apologia pro vita sua.
3:41 Not really, if what those "Protestants" who originally translated were finding Apostolic Succession, priests submitting to their bishop, Real Presence in the Eucharist in the Fathers.
Which the Oxford movement certainly did find in them.
Not exactly what Lizzy Reezay would have considered as Protestant back at Pepperdine!
9:14 I basically never say "that's your interpretation" without following up by giving a better one.
I think some Protestants have given me less courtesy, for instance when I state that
Genesis 3:15, Judges 5 (forgot the verse), Luke 1:28, 1:31, 1:42 between them prove Our Lady defeated Satan and prior to becoming Mother of God, while a verse in 1 John seems to prove She could not possibly have done so other than by being sinless.
11:28 I usually don't argue from infallibility for a Catholic claim against a Protestant.
I argue for infallibility a lot, but either the general thing, or that the Bible interpretation leaves a reasonable spectrum, and infallibility settles the exact point.
However, that there is an infallible Church is not disputable in reasonable Bible interpretation. Interpreting certain passages as not meaning that is about as candid as chosing the solution of an equation with imaginary numbers instead of a very simple one in natural integers.
12:48 "we cannot really know what it means this side of eternity"
Like God put it into the Bible so that no one could really understand it?
@AllieBethStuckey
Why am I not Catholic?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4lOCGSStgk4
"by grace alone, through faith alone"
Do you find that in the Bible?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment