X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:58:02 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Gospel

Excerpts from christia: 13-Nov-92 Re: The Gospel Tom Brewer@LSUVM.BITNET (4374)

> >Ah, the truth comes out.  You get your information from embittered,
> >virulent anti-Catholic former Catholics who have been duped by
> >anti-Catholics before them, like Lorraine Boettner, Jack Chick, Tony
> >Alamo, Jimmy Swaggart, and others.
> >
>  Ah, the truth comes out. Anyone who could possibly dare to leave Rome has
>  to be "duped" by somebody else. It's unthinkable that God would liberate
>  anyone from the bondage of Rome into the liberty in Christ. And of course
>  ignore the possibility that any of the above individuals might actually
>  have the truth.

Tom, the fact is these people I mention and others spread outright lies
and misinformation about the Catholic Church.  They are sensationalists
and what they says is about as accurate as the stories in the National
Equirer.  Even Christianity Today has exposed some of their
anti-Catholic propaganda as fraudulent.

I speak of duped anti-Catholics because they have heard and believed the
gross misrepresentations these people teach about the Catholic Church.
Jack Chick claims that the Pope says he's God.  You ought to know how
absurd that is in reality.  Tony Alamo thinks that the CIA is controlled
by the Catholic Church.  Lorraine Boettner's book _Roman Catholicism_
has demonstrable gross inaccuracies.

I have seen the material these people put out.  Using these lies, they
convince people to leave the Catholic Church, and these people, who
believe the lies, turn into lifelong anti-Catholics.  Some of the lies
told by these folks:

* We worship Mary.
* We worshipt he Pope.
* We resacrifice Christ at every Mass.
* We believe the priest is Christ.
* We believe the priest has the power to create God.
* We believe that Mary is the fourth person of the Trinity.

And so forth.

This is what I mean by "duped."

Excerpts from christia: 13-Nov-92 Re: The Gospel Tom Brewer@LSUVM.BITNET (4374)

> >Martin's _The Jesuits_.  They have wholly abandoned true Catholic
> >teaching for New Age and Marxist doctrines, and I would not trust
> >anything they said in modern times.  They have abandoned their
> >committment to defending the Pope and have turned to Marxist
> >revolutionary teachings.
> >
> >Nevertheless, the Jesuits do _not_ speak officially for the church.

>  Ah, the truth continues to come out. Any Jesuit material from the past
> is  automatically null and void because these new kids on the block are
> going  to the left. Forget all the old Jesuit material with the
> imprimaturs and  nihil obstats. They are no longer true.

Ummm, Tom, did you see what I said?  I said, "I would not trust anything
they said IN MODERN TIMES."  Second of all, Tom, there are only two
sources of dogmatic truth: the canons of dogmatic ecumenical councils
and of ex cathedra pronouncements.  Jesuits do not speak for the church.
 Franciscans do not speak for the church.  Theologians do not speak for
the church.  Nihil obstats and imprimaturs are useful, but if you knew
anything about them, a "nihil obstat" means "nothing stands in the way"
and simply means that the book teaches no heresy.  It does **NOT** imply
the book contains official church teaching.  "Imprimatur" means "let it
be printed" and bear similar meaning.  Neither of these things makes the
document official Church teaching.

I would venture to bet that nothing in modern times written by the
Jesuits that carries their error bears a nihil obstat or imprimatur.
Note that no one even mentioned reading or not reading Jesuit books with
nihil obstats or imprimaturs.  Jesse just said "Read the books of the
Jesuits", and I said, that is no guarantee that that is church teaching,
I never said that books with an imprimatur and nihil obstat could not be
trusted.  Not all Jesuits are corrupt, but a large portion of the order
is.  I trust the church not to approve a book written by a Jesuit that
contains their modernist errors.

>  Ah, the saga of truth continues. De Fide doctrines give protestants a
> bad  taste in their mouths because they interpret them with protestant
> eyes.

It takes time to overcome erroneous misconceptions about Catholic
teaching and understand the teachings in context.  Especially when you
had been told the lies I was told by Protestants about what Catholics
believed.

>  Would it really matter if we looked at these books? After all, we don't
> have  the correct Catholic presuppositions to interpret them. And if
> they're not  "rigorous theological texts," then what can they possibly
> say about  Catholic doctrine?

The verse, "For they would not believe even if someone rose from the
dead" comes to mind. Given your hatred for and bias against the Catholic
Church, it may not make any difference.  But, after all, Scott Hahn and
Gerry Matatics were virulent anti-Catholics who looked at Catholic
documents with Protestant eyes and were converted.  So it's not
impossible.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU