How To End A Discussion With A Tradition-Hating Roman Protestant
It works every time
Just tell them the following;
We are now what you once were.
We believe now what you once believed.
We worship now as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you have always been wrong.
It works every time
Just tell them the following;
We believe now what you once believed.
We worship now as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you have always been wrong.
posted by Kevin Whiteman at
9:08 PM
19 Comments:
"We are now what you once were.
We believe now what you once believed.
We worship now as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you have always been wrong."
Oh yeah!?!
We are now what you lost sight of...
We believe now what you've forgotten...
You Worship A False Idol and have forgotten what you once worshipped...
We were both wrong then, and we are both wrong now...
We knew humility then, and we hope we know humility now as only Christ had a clear eye...
We are all tethered to the rock behind the veil, struggling to know what is right. Sometimes a poor peasant in India with a dayglow painted plastic jesus on a folding table has a clearer connection with god than does a wealthy American in a beautiful chapel with a steeple struggling to touch heaven.
Arrogance upon arrogance and all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
Calling others Roman Protestants is really a heretical act. You are excommunicating others in your heart. That is a right reserved to bishops. True obedience to the magisterium would bring understanding that you as a layperson do not have this power.
He he he. Lemme memorize that. :-)
WC,
The judge from The Lair gives you a perfect 10 for your verbal gymnastics routine.
I notice that you fail to point out the fatal flaw in my little posting. Know why? Because you can't.
What I posted is absolutely true, and those of the "liberal" mindset are too proud and arrogant to admit such.
If I choose to use the phrase "Roman Protestants", that's my call. In fact, your prodding has motivated me use it even more often. Thanks!
By the way, please capitalize the first letter when you typre the words "God" and "Jesus".
Not only is that the correct usage of the English language... it's also showing respect for God Almighty.
OK swami, tell me what I missed. I like fatal flaws.
"Swami"? I don't even rate VSC anymore? I must be getting under your skin.
Anyhow, do you honestly expect me to point out specifically what you missed? OK... no problem.
How about the entire thing? Seriously, do you not get it?
Must be. Tell ya what... I'll just re-post the last part;
If we are wrong now, you have always been wrong.
Has arrogance and pride blinded you that much that you refuse to recognoze the fact that you've not only abandoned your spiritual heritage, you now sneer down your nose to it.
In fact, the arrogance of the so-called "Liberal Catholics" (an oxymoron, by the way) is so great, that while The Church is collapsing in upon Herself... while the sewage of Modernism and Protestantism floods into our Church, you good folks slap each other on the back and congratulate each other for what a wonderful job you're doing.
Do I really need to point out the empty seminaries, convent, rectories, etc, etc, yet again? In fact, do I really need to point out how most practicing Catholics don't even believe in The Real Presence anymore?
Yes, WC. It's obvious that you "like fatal flaws" as you put it.
Fatal flaw... Spirit of Vatican II. Same thing.
Nonsense. The Anglican church has full rectories. Mandatory celibacy is our problem. And that is *not* traditional. The first 1000 years of the church there was no mandatory celibacy.
Calling others Roman Protestants is really a heretical act. You are excommunicating others in your heart. That is a right reserved to bishops. True obedience to the magisterium would bring understanding that you as a layperson do not have this power.
Check this out: suddenly, we have a liberal admonishing us to preserve the distinction between clergy and laity -- and over a "usurpation" that doesn't even exist!
Meanwhile, liberals can't get enough of real usurpations, like hordes of extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, laymen (or more often, laywomen) preaching homilies, and Communion services instead of Mass, even when a priest is available to offer Mass.
WC,
You can't be serious. Your solution is pointing to the example set by heretical Protestants?
I'm just.... stunned. Actually, I'd laugh if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
By the way, have you noticed that Anglicanism is dying? The great cathedrals of England are nothing more than tourist attractions. In fact, did you know that there are more practicing Catholics in England then there are practicing Anglicans?
But you keep pointing to Protestant examples as the solution to our problems.
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you still fail to point out the fatal flaw in my little posting. Know why? Because you can't.
Oops, I almost forgot...
The last paragraph of you initial post stated Calling others Roman Protestants is really a heretical act. You are excommunicating others in your heart. That is a right reserved to bishops. True obedience to the magisterium would bring understanding that you as a layperson do not have this power.
Hold on a sec... you state that excommunicating is a right only for the bishops... but you also accuse me of committing an excommunicable act.
Please enlighten me more how we Traditionalists have a monopoly on arrogance and hypocracy.
Calling others "roman protestants" is not an act of excommunication. It is a denouncement, an accusation of schism and heresy, but not a canonical sanction (even in pectore).
In addition to....
capitaliz[ing] the first letter when you type the words "God" and "Jesus"...
please add "Pope" and "Mass" (as in Holy Sacrifice of the ---) to that list.
Anglicans have full seminaries? RU kinddin' me? They don't even have full churches. They like most prots don't say "No" to much of anything anymore. Celibacy aint the problem, LACK OF FAITH is. And this liberal "Get laid or die" mentality which has been thrust upon us since the 60's and the notion that being a virgin, even at age 40 is "bad" or "weird." My wife is proof that it is possible to remain a virgin till marriage. Orthodoxy (and I mean this in the broad sense) sells because it means something. Who wants to belong to a convent will with a bunch of old baby-boomer grannies who don't even dress or act like nuns.
Anita is right on here too. A liberal telling us to keep the distinction between clergy and laity. Wow.
And it's "God" and "Jesus" not "god" and "jesus"
Vir--I'm with you buddy, 110%! It's interesting what happens when you are conversing with a RP, and point out what the Church teaches, especially if you reference it to the CCC: they exclaim that the "church" will catch up to the "faithfull", a quote: "The church is starting to 'come around' on condoms."
Now an exception to this is when you speak with a priest, he'll say "That's the official teaching, but the statement isn't very nuanced."
By and large, these folks have lost the faith, and want us to lose it too, so they won't be reminded.
WC, hmmmmm--in europe those letters ment something else entirely.
All The Way!
Ignorant Redneck
Hi Cavey,
I would agree that the anglicans are not necessarily the best examples to cite at the moment, and as you point out elsewhere the Eastern Rite might be a bit better.
To me the fatal flaw is in the last line. The chruch believes that the HOLY SPIRIT (all caps for extra super respectfullnes) sometimes reveals truth over time, which is part of catholic tradition. That is how it is sometimes explained that the church came to realize that slavery was wrong, over time, or that Mary was immaculate, over time.
So the whole If we are wrong now, you have always been wrong thing, is a bit incorrect. It could well be that some dissenters see a revealed truth that the church will someday affirm.
Two things I always try to bring up in discussions of this nature:
1) The Church has survived crises before, and it nearly always got worse before it got better. Arianism became even more widespread after the Council of Nicea. Trent's reforms took decades, even centuries, to enforce, and Europe had to endure a horrible war before things settled down. My son (born this year) will be an old man when we can get a real perspective on what has happened recently. As Fr. Rutler said, Vatican II will be understood when it is looked at as a council, rather than as the council.
2) When the Church is in crisis, God raises up people to deal with the situation. Liturgical chaos? Revival of the Old Mass and the "reform of the reform". Heretics in the classrooms? Christendom College, Thomas Aquinas College, homeschooling, and independent schools. Unfaithful religious? the Nashville Dominicans, Sisters of Life, Fathers of Mercy, and the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal. Unfaithful priests? The new generation is giving the Old Guard fits. Finally, the laity has become more involved, and in a direction the Modernists never imagined. Maybe all of these things seem small and insignificant now, but Sts. Ignatius, Phillip Neri, Francis, and Benedict all had to start somewhere...
Aww, Kevin, you've picked up a troll... or the blog version of a lamprey. I might have to incorporation comments myself so I'll have one to play with.
Michael,
Jump on in!!
It could well be that some dissenters see a revealed truth that the church will someday affirm.
Thank you very much, Martina Luther.
Actually, I believe I'll forget about having comments. As Hilary White (whom I really miss) once said in a memorable blog post about this very subject (new mass vs. old mass), "I have better things to do than to try to civilize barbarians."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home