| Author | Comment |
| Note: | A day of responses and debate on the "Former Catholics For Christ" message board between Scott and someone who goes by the name of "KJB Only" : |
| KJB
Only (6/5/04 11:24 am) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too Much
Duke, "We don't have an exact script of EVERYTHING Philip said to the eunuch." 
Amazing!! Absolutely amazing!
So, Duke...you think that maybe Philip got all those catholic requirements in reeeeealy fast and didn't have time to write them all down?
Actually, that would be a good thing because if he had written down all of the RCC's requirements for baptism, the New Testament would contain an extra 850 pages
"That being said, rituals and rites are disciplines that can and do change." How can you then claim that your church is traceable back to the apostles when your "rituals and rites" didn't even exist or Philip would have been aware of them and so sent that eunuch to RCIA!
"So, the point being EVEN TODAY, in the Catholic Church, ADULT CONVERTS must make a profession of faith prior to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism." That's not all they must do as I showed in my previous post...NONE of which is in the least bit Biblically sound! Goooood grief. KJB Only |
| Duke77 (6/6/04 11:05 am)  |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Quote:KJB, you've been spouting about all these extra "requirements" of baptism put forth by the Catholic Church - you've even given us a number of pages that one would be, allegedly, required to profess prior to baptism - but not ONCE have you documented where we might find these imaginary requirements you speak of. Please, KJB, for the education of this Catholic - who did convert as an adult, and somehow missed out on this 850 page dissertation/profession - tell me where I might find this "requirement" - OR - have the integrity to admit you're puffing this up with hyperbole. Quote:So, I demonstrate how the Catholic practice of having adult converts IS biblically sound - using the SAME PASSAGE YOU CITED - and now you proclaim "NONE of which is in the least bit Biblically(sic) sound." You contradict yourself at every turn. Are you confused, or just a bad liar? You claim you "showed" this in your previous post. You "showed" nothing. You made an undocumented claim and I challenge it. I fully expect this posting to be answered with further ridicule in an attempt to divert attention from the challenge levied. KJB cannot document his claim, for such documentation does not exist. Thus, he's faced with either utilizing diversion tactics or admitting he puffed this up with hyperbole (or that he outright lied about this). Scott<<<
 Edited by: Duke77 at: 6/6/04 11:11 am |
| KJB
Only (6/6/04 11:33 am) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Duke, Ahhh, I can feel that famous catholic charity just oozing out of your every pore
"...but not ONCE have you documented where we might find these imaginary requirements you speak of." Sure did...order of catechumens, rite of election, scrutinies. "You contradict yourself at every turn. Are you confused, or just a bad liar?" That's more like it! Yeah! I get sick of all the papal bull about Romanists being so "loving" and "charitable", the leopard can never change it's spots 
After he knew that the eunuch believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, he baptized him. He did NOT offer to sign him up for RCIA classes! "I fully expect this posting to be answered with further ridicule..." Nah, I won't go papal on 'ya
You have a far more serious error than "how" Philip baptized anybody, that being that you believe, as your church commands, that it is water baptism that "saves" you. KJB Only P.S. What's with the "in the least bit Biblically(sic) sound" bit? How do YOU spell it? |
| Duke77 (6/6/04 12:00 pm)  |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Quote:That's not "documentation." I asked you to DOCUMENT where we are "required" to make this alleged 850 page dissertation/profession (and your ridiculing scoff that the water would dry up before we ever got to baptize). No KJB, YOU stated it was a "requirement" and I want the EXACT WORDS from authentic Catholic documents, including sources (preferably online) that we might verify this - AND - that THIS CATHOLIC CONVERT might see this "requirement" that he missed when he was brought into the Catholic Church. I did not speak uncharitably of you, I challenged you. I KNOW that no such documentation exists, so either YOU get to eat some humble pie, or *I* do. ONE of us has misrepresented the Catholic teaching on this matter. Since I claim the documentation does NOT exist (and one is not required to prove a negative) the burden of proof lies with the one holding the positive, namely YOU who claims such documentation DOES exist. Time to put up or retract. I would hope the "moderators" here would support me in this request. Quote:I asked a question of you, and you act as if I have acted (as many of the non-Catholics act) uncharitably or unloving. I believe you have lied about the teaching of the Catholic Faith in this matter. I am giving you the chance to show I am wrong - or for you to humble yourself before your brethren. Either way, in the eyes of a Christian, you come out looking good. Quote:The point was, Philip WAITED for the adult convert to acknowledge his faith in Christ Jesus BEFORE he would baptize him. THAT was my point! That as an ADULT CONVERT, we STILL require this profession, making the Catholic practice quite biblical. Quote:Well, you did not disappoint me, noting all the little graphics you chose to include, and you think you did not resort to ridicule? You're just confirming my question about your confusion - thank you. Quote:You might try reading what St. Peter wrote: Quote:Ah yes, more biblical proof that the teachings of the Catholic Church ARE biblically sound. Quote:Since you asked: you spelled it right, except that you capitalized "biblically." The word "biblically" is not a proper noun, though it refers to the proper noun of "Bible." It is proper to capitalize "Bible" but not "biblically" or "biblical." The same would be true of "Scripture" and "scripturally" or "scriptural." In JMJ, Scott<<<
Edited by: Duke77 at: 6/6/04 12:05 pm |
| KJB
Only (6/6/04 12:50 pm) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Duke, "I KNOW that no such documentation exists, so either YOU get to eat some humble pie, or *I* do. ONE of us has misrepresented the Catholic teaching on this matter." How hungry are 'ya? Begin reading at CCC 1229. "You're just confirming my question about your confusion - thank you." Well sure, Duke, you're quite welcome. "You might try reading what St. Peter wrote". It is 1 Pet. 3 to which you refer and I have read it many times, the difference being that I understand it while you obey Rome and believe it to mean what she tells you it means. You share her water fetish and you are as confused as she is, thinking that the flood saved anybody. "Ah yes, more biblical proof that the teachings of the Catholic Church ARE biblically sound." Yeah, about as sound as the Titanic...and when she went down, all the people were saved by water, right?
"Since you asked: you spelled it right, except that you capitalized 'biblically.'" Yeah, I knew that would be your answer
KJB Only |
| Duke77 (6/6/04 1:46 pm) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Quote:Funny you should refer to the CCC on this matter. If we took that whole section on Baptism, it would not amount to anything even CLOSE to the 850 pages you alluded to earlier. It is also noted, the CCC was not among the sources you referred to earlier. Now, I asked for an exact reference, is this as close as you're going to get to fulfilling the challenge? If so, you come up about 849 pages short of the mark. Just providing a CCC reference to a single passage in the CCC is NOT documentation, and certainly not even close to documenting 850 pages of added "requirements" that an adult convert must fulfill prior to receiving the Sacrament of Baptism. THAT was YOUR statement, KJB, document or retract please. Still waiting for you to document how I have misrepresented the Catholic teaching on this matter - or your humble retraction. We need to see something like, "The Catholic Church teaches "X" as recorded in "Y" but Scott (or Duke, if you prefer) is saying "Z." Show how I have contradicted the teaching of the Church, or show some humility and retract. Quote:Thanks again. Quote:Um, I know that and I quoted the passage in the message I posted. Why did you feel the need to tell me which passage to which I refer? More confusion, I guess. Quote:Oh? Please, KJB, (sarcasm on) do this poor uninformed Catholic (sarcasm off) a favor, and document where Rome "tells me" what I must "obey" regarding this passage. Again, be precise and include proper citation of your source(s) with this documentation. YOU made the statement, I have challenged it (again) so please provide the documentation or humbly retract. Quote:Then you already KNEW you were grammatically incorrect, and you STILL asked me to show you? I sure like it when you make ME look good! Thanks again! 
In JMJ, Scott<<<
|
| KJB
Only (6/6/04 6:45 pm) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Dukey, "Now, I asked for an exact reference..." Heeeeere 'ya go, Dukey. Sheesh, the url was so long itself that I had to break it down so as not to have everybody scrolling right to read it. www.catholicliturgy.com/ index.cfm/FuseAction/ documentText/Index/ 14/SubIndex/0/ContentIndex/540/Start/539 "Show how I have contradicted the teaching of the Church, or show some humility and retract." Your church teaches that there is a protracted period of "initiation" before one may be baptized. So, by saying that Philip baptizing the eunuch was valid, you contradict your boss. "Um, I know that and I quoted the passage in the message I posted. Why did you feel the need to tell me which passage to which I refer? More confusion, I guess." That's a bit "overboard", isn't it? Your frustration at not finding a receptive, ignorant, and easily swayed audience for your Roman drivel is showing. "...and document where Rome 'tells me' what I must 'obey' regarding this passage." Seventh session, council of Trent, decree on the sacraments. KJB Only |
| Duke77 (6/6/04 9:16 pm) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Quote:That's nice, but I copied the ENTIRE SECTION into Word and checked the number of pages, hmmm, we're up to 7 pages! You claimed there would be 850 pages, so we're at LEAST 743 pages short! I say "at least" because your CLAIM was we'd have to add 850 pages of requirements, and much of what is written in those 7 pages are not "requirements" but rather explanations and guidelines. You're falling quite short of the mark, KJB. I await your humble retraction. Quote:Not good enough, KJB. I asked you to SHOW how I have contradicted the teachings of the Catholic Church AND I asked you to DOCUMENT your claim. You pointed to a URL and say that is documentation - sorry, that doesn't wash. 1) How long, exactly is this "protracted period." Be precise and include your reference(s). 2) Demonstrate that my saying that Philip baptized the eunuch AFTER confirming his faith is a contradiction of "my boss." Again, be precise and include your reference(s). Quote:Why is it "overboard?" Not only did I make mention of St. Peter's writing, I quoted it and included the chapter and verse references. Then you tell me, "What you're referring to is 2 Peter 3..." Well, duh! If you were reading what I posted clearly that was already known. The one who appears to be a bit frustrated is you. You're up against a Catholic who knows his faith - AND - he knows the "faith" he left behind. You're not facing a Catholic who is easily swayed - and you're falling WAY SHORT of the mark that YOU MADE. You've been challenged and you cannot fulfill the challenge, so you're lashing out. No KJB, I'm quite level headed and calm. I'm not calling you names (like "Dukey" and "Romanist"). In fact, up until recently in this thread, you've been rather restrained yourself from such childish tactics - but now that you're unable to provide the "850 pages" of "added requirements" (that's YOUR FIGURE, NOT MINE) you're beginning to use the juvenile tactics. Note, I am still not attacking YOU, I'm attacking your tactics as juvenile. Quote:KJB, did you even read the section you're referring me to? I did - the section on "Canons on Baptism" is barely 1 page long and NOWHERE does it mention Acts 8, Philip or the eunuch. Sorry KJB, you're not documenting yourself very well - in fact, not at all with regard to the SUBJECT AT HAND! Care to try again? If not, I would be humbled by your humble retraction. (And I have provided a link to Trent, Session 7 for those who would like to verify what I'm saying - that NOWHERE does it mention Acts 8 or Philip and the eunuch, and THAT is what you were challenged to document). In JMJ, Scott<<<
|
| KJB
Only (6/6/04 10:23 pm) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
"Demonstrate that my saying that Philip baptized the eunuch AFTER confirming his faith is a contradiction of 'my boss.' Again, be precise and include your reference(s)" Yes sir! Right away, sir!
Baptism makes us members of Christ's body, Pope Eugene IV, General Council of Florence, “Exultate Deo,” 1439) -3. Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Can. 5 on the Sacrament of Baptism) - 4. No one can enter the kingdom of God without faith and water baptism.(Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, Dec. 11, 1925)-8. Water baptism causes justification (Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 7 on Justification)- 12. Water baptism makes one a member of Christ's body, Pope Eugene IV, General Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra. If you say that water baptism is not necessary for salvation, you are cursed, Pope Paul III, The Council of Trent, canons on the Sacrament of Baptism, canon 5. Water baptism brings salvation, Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 1, 1215, ex cathedra. Water baptism is the cause of justificationPope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 7 on Justification, ex cathedra. Also "catechumens" must beg "the" church before they can be baptized, for faith! The eunuch "confessed" NONE of those crazy beliefs and Philip never would have dreamed of asking him to and so he would be baptizing contrary to your bosses commands. Oh, yeah....before you ask....No, Dukey, I can't prove with documentation acceptable to you that Philip never dreamed that dream...sheesh
Now, do your usual dance as you've done with everyone elses posts that dare disagree with you..."You're confused", "You haven't made your point", "You've failed to do as I asked", etc., etc. After you're all done with that, tell me that Philip told the eunuch that before he could be baptized he'd have to beg "the" church for "faith". If you won't or can't then you will have disobeyed your boss by saying that Philip's baptism was "legit". KJB Only P.S. I apologize to everyone who has waded through this silliness..."Yeah, but you said 850 pages and you can't prove that it would take more than seven!" Gooooood grief, seems that some folks don't know what "exagerration to make a point" means. Edited by: KJB Only at: 6/6/04 10:36 pm |
| Duke77 (6/7/04 12:03 am) |
Re: Methinks the Protestant Protesteth Too
Much
Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:KJB, that's not documentation of the contradiction you were challenged to document. Quote:"Beg?" Would you care to document that as well now? Quote:KJB, I would not have asked you to document the dream that came from your own imagination. That being said, you didn't show that ANY of those were a requirement to be confessed before Baptism is administered in the Catholic Church. Yes, they are teachings ON Baptism, but your challenge was to show that Phillip baptizing after confirming the faith was a contradiction to my "boss." You didn't do that. Quote:Well, the objective reader here can certainly see that you totally avoided that which you were challenged to document. It may be "usual" for me to respond this way because it "usual" for you to not follow-through with what you're challenged to do. Whining or turning it into a personal attack is not valid argumentation. Do what you were required to do - or concede that you cannot. Quote:The last I checked, this "begging" you're refering to was not a "requirement for baptism," so you've gone out on your own (again) on this one. I was baptized (conditionally) in the Catholic Church, I didn't have to "beg" for this. I've also been part of numerous Catholic baptisms in various parishes, and none of those had to "beg" to be baptized either. Sorry KJB, your argument just isn't flying. Quote:Well, KJB, you could have saved everyone a lot of reading if you had just stated it was an exageration in the first place! The fact is, you stated there were all these "extra requirements" for baptism in the Catholic Church, and stated it would add 850 pages to the Bible if these requirements were written down. You CLAIM your statement was merely an exageration, but you didn't back down from your literal statement until the end of a full day of debating! Sorry, I'm not buying it. I could accept that you meant it as an exageration - but now I'd have to ask, "how much of an exageration?" You found ONE PAGE of teachings, and not everything on that one page was a "requirement" for baptism - so merely an exageration? I think not. I think you overstated your case and are now backpedalling because you were caught in that overstatement.
|
| ============= | End of the day, 6/6/2004 |