From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Anti-Catholicism: "Saul, Saul, why ..."
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 22:31:51 GMT

In article <9208211516.AA05604@motgate.mot.com> bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com writes:
>This is an open letter (and a very short one) to Tom Brewer, Jesse
>Carnes, Dan Graham, and anyone else who has reacted in a violently
>negative fashion to Elizabeth's posts.

   Well said, Brad.  I might add that after reading the tone of many
of the posts in question, I don't think they sound like they were
written by Christians.  Some of these posts practically said that
Cyndi Cain isn't even a human being, referring to her as a "thing" or
an "it".  Even if one were to assume that she is demon-possessed to
have written such things (as I get the impression some of you think),
think!  We just finished a discussion on respecting other people vs.
respecting their beliefs.  The posts I just read do neither.  Instead
they resort ad hominem attacks on Elizabeth and the person she quoted.
Someone even went so far as to check on Elizabeth's biography, perhaps
to see if it said she was a a Mary-worshipper or something?

   As far as certain people always going on about, "Show me where it
is in the Bible!  Show me where it is in the Bible!": we've already
showed you where it says in the Bible that the bishops are the
guardians of the the Church's teaching (including Scripture), and
where the Bible contradicts the notion of "Scripture Alone," but you
can't even accept that.  Remove that beam from your eye, then perhaps
you will be able to see to work on the specks you think you see in the
eyes of us Catholics.

   Is the Bible really your sole rule of faith, or were you taught
most of what you believe by someone who quoted the Bible in such a way
as to make it appear that it supports those beliefs?  I think the
latter is true, that you studied the Bible with an already-prejudiced
mind, and just ignored the parts that contradict your already-held
beliefs.  For example, where do you get the term "Trinity"?  I submit
that rather than "Scripture Alone," you are following traditions --
not the Tradition given by Christ to His Church through the Apostles,
spoken of throughout the New Testament epistles -- but truly the
traditions of men.

   I tell you one thing, to think that you are able to properly
interpret the entire Bible on your own, without need of the
authorities Christ Himself set up, reeks of Pride.  The proof that it
just doesn't work that way is evident from the multitude of differing
interpretations coming from those of you who think that way.  Or I
suppose, "_They_ don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them, but _I_
do!"  Strange, that's what _They_ tell me too.

   As for me, I willingly submit to the authority that Christ has set
up over me, the Church (more properly, the Church hierarchy).  Even
though I may not be able to come up with the correct interpretations
of the Bible on my own, I know the Church does have the Holy Spirit to
guide her, because Christ Himself so promised.  Therefor, by following
the teaching of the Church, I can be certain of following Christ.

   Even if it weren't the case that Jesus instituted the Papacy, He
certainly did institute the bishops, and that is plain to see in the
Bible.  By the way, the title "Pope" is an unofficial one, popularly
given to the successor of Peter, whose official title is "Bishop of
Rome."  So the word "Pope" may not be used in the Bible, but what is
important is that Peter is always mentioned first, or the apostles are
referred to as "Peter and the Apostles."  Either way, Peter is seen to
have a higher prominence than the others.  Apostolic succession is
also biblical, as one can read in chapter 1 of the Acts of the
Apostles, in which the Apostles select the successor of Judas
Iscariot.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU