(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Jason - are you interested in TRUTH or just FOLKLORE?
Reconciliation, Towards Unity - Anglicans: With Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Orthodox, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Read between the lines. A case of the Anglican-RC dialogue. (Christopher Yip)
Time for Anti-Catholic Mr. Yip to wake up from his out-dated-ness 
I agree with unity for the churches (Jason S)
Jason - I too agree unity is important BUT NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF BIBLICAL TRUTH (Christopher Yip)
The never ending.........Is there Peace? (Jason S)
|
Jason,
I'm truly amazed at what you wrote. For a while, I wondered if you have ever attended any catechism classes at all! Let me make a prediction here - whatever Matthew Tan is going to agree with you, he will NEVER agree with you that Roman Catholics are simply old-fashioned or that if we wanted to understand Roman Catholicism, visiting any Roman Catholic Church and observing the proceedings will suffice. I'm hard-pressed for time and so I have to be selective in my responses. I am going to try and make you see some light. YOU: I know you mean good buy almost everywhere in Antioch I can see you giving your point of view to others. I don't mean to rebuke you, truely! ME: Actually you caught my notice because your post suddenly appeared all over Antioch. Every page I scroll down, there's Jason S's post. It got me curious. As for myself, at this moment, I am responding only to three topics. One is on house church with RTC, another is to anti-Protestant Matthew Tan's posts which, in case you don't realise, are ALL OVER Antioch, and finally, also to you. Admittedly, I responded the MOST against anti-Protestant Mr Tan's polemics. There is a reason for this. This is a Protestant forum basically and he has been spreading Roman Catholic heresies. I simply feel that he should be rebutted. Now, if you only take a moment and let the entire Antioch opening page to load until the first post appears at the bottom, and then scroll through all the threads, it should be obvious to anyone that as far as my debate with him is concerned, I am ALWAYS REACTING. In other words, it was not I who purposely go and spread some "anti-Roman Catholic" falsehood, not that what I said about Roman Catholicism is in any way false. Perhaps your idea is that I should simply let him continue to propagate Roman Catholic dogmas of purgatory, salvation by works, penances, confession to priests, praying to Mary, etc. Sorry, no can do. YOU: The so and so whatever info against the Catholics I really don't know where you got them, Catholics are just old-fashioned, not just what you think they act like Royal Supremacy, if you said they pray to saints and Mary, you are wrong. One cannot recieve salvation if he don't listen to the Pope? Where you get this info? ME: THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING PARAGRAPH of your post! It also tells me something about you - you don't read my posts carefully. Perhaps it's my fault to have given you so much information all at once, hence, you probably just read the first line of each paragraph. Let me answer your question and draw your attention to some facts. Where do I get information? From Roman Catholic OFFICIAL sources. You see, Jason, unlike the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholicism is very well organised. They have structure and everything. They have the Code of Canon Law to regulate the priests and bishops, they have the Catechism of the Catholic Church to explain their beliefs to the lay person, they have their Encyclicals (letters) written by their Popes, they have their Conciliar Decrees which they promulgate at their Councils. Listen, it is through ALL these that I get the information about Roman Catholicism. It is the SAME WAY any Roman Catholic theologian, historian, priest, bishop, cardinal and convert get theirs. So, did I in fact use them? Yup. Now if you look at the END of every paragraph of quotation about Roman Catholic beliefs in my last post, you will notice that I indicate the SOURCE of that quote and they are all available on the internet, on Roman Catholic websites, if you like. Check it out yourself. Actually, readers who follow the debate and those who have been around here for a long time probably are thinking, "Why does Christopher bother to reply Jason? Obviously, Jason does not know the first thing about Roman Catholicism!" The fact that you do not know or notice that what I have quoted are from OFFICIAL Roman Catholic AUTHORITATIVE sources for their doctrine betrays your ignorance. Statements such as "not just what you think they act like Royal Supremacy" or "if you said they pray to saints and Mary, you are wrong" and "One cannot recieve salvation if he don't listen to the Pope? Where you get this info?" are clear evidence of how much or rather how little you know of ROman Catholicism. Mind you, knowing Roman Catholicism for what it really is and refuting the heresies don't make me an "anti-Catholic". If so, Jesus is "anti-Pharisees" and "anti-Sadducees", He too must have HATED Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul too must have been "anti-Athenians" since he debated them. So he too must have HATED the Athenians. Peter didn't want to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles at first, so, he too must be "anti-Gentile" and must have HATED them. Does it make sense, Jason, that just because you criticise a BELIEF, it automatically means you also HATE the BELIEVER? Does it make sense, Jason? Think about this. Now, as for your assertion that I have misunderstood Roman Catholicism, that, for example, one can refuse to believe the things that the Pope teaches and yet be saved, I hope you can go back to my previous post and read the quotation again and this time, NOTE THE SOURCE of the quotation. THEN come back to me and tell me why I am wrong. You see, Jason, you confuse what the common Roman Catholic believer thinks his Church teaches and what the REAL Roman Catholic Church teaches. The average Roman Catholic believes a lot of things but if you wanted to know what the Church really teaches, do you just ask the Roman Catholic you meet in "Christ the King catholic church"? Say, if I wanted to know what the Anglicans believe, do I step into St Andrew Cathedral and simply observe? Or just talk to a Anglican there or outside? Now, if such an Anglican were to say to me that the Anglican Church believes that the Apocrypha was inspired because they do read and quote them. Then I meet a Roman Catholic who tells me that this is untrue and then he proceeds to quote to me Article 6 of the 39 Articles which says in part: "And the other books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine ... (the list of Apocrypha)" Now, can you imagine the silliness of my response if I were to say to the Roman Catholic, "Relax, brother. Don't be too fundamental, ask your Priests and Bishop, email them and get the answers. The Anglicans don't believe the Apocrypha is God-inspired Scriptures? Where you get this info?" And you probably will even stop listening to me if I tell him, "Why don't you come with me to St Andrew's Cathedral this Sunday and let me introduce you to this Anglican who told me that the Apocrypha is God-inspired and then you will know the REAL truth!" Yes, Jason, WHERE did YOU get the information that disbelieving what the Pope teaches will not cause the Roman Catholic to lose his salvation? As for my assertion that they do, I quote from the Decree of the Vatican Council II which I repeat here: "Further, all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement, or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed. And since, without faith, it is impossible to please God, and to attain to the fellowship of his children, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, nor will any one obtain eternal life unless he shall have persevered in faith unto the end (Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council I, On Faith, Chapter III) Now, the average Roman Catholic may not know this, or even disbelieve it, THE POINT is DOES THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACH IT? Yes the Church does unless Pope John Paul II tells us that Chapter III of the Decree of the Roman Catholic Council Vatican I of 1869-70 is no longer binding on every Roman Catholic. YOU: I myself also don't dare to interpret myself some verses in the bible unless I prayed for guidiance and ask the Priest for confirmation. Directly absorbing facts from the bible may lead to fatal consequences. ME: And how does the priest know FOR SURE he has got the right interpretation? Does the priest actually tell you that he is infallibly right? I'm sure the Anglican priest will never say that. But still, his interpretation would be more reliable than ours, won't it? And why? Is it not because he STUDIED the bible? Perhaps he studied Greek and Hebrew, perhaps he has studied the Church Fathers and the Christian creeds, perhaps he has studied the writings of Calvin, Luther, perhaps he has studied Church history, etc. And so, on this basis, we believe his views deserve more credibility but not infallibility. Now, if YOU, Jason S, were to do the same thing - enrol into a seminary, take the same course of study as the Anglican priest did, put your heart and soul into the lessons, and actually pass the exams with flying colours, maybe even better than the priest, even summa cum laude of your class, will not YOUR interpretation be even more credible than the priest's? So, while it is true that uninformed exegesis is to be avoided, it is untrue that only clergy can interpret Scriptures faithfully and accurately. ANYONE can as long as he applies the correct hermeneutics. Remember this, Jason, that the answer to critical questions about the bible, such as who wrote the book, why he wrote it, to whom did he write it, what was the cause that prompted it, what were the actual words he wrote, how was it copied to other churches, etc. CANNOT BE ANSWERED BY PRAYER BUT BY HARD STUDY. It is naive to pray, "Dear God, tell me what does Matthew 16:18 really mean? Amen" and really EXPECT an answer! YOU: When you last talked about Anglican practises and Catholics, tell me frankly, have you ever been to an Anglican church or St Andrew's Cathedral before? I invite you here this Sunday, for Traditional Service of Holy Communion ( Book of Common Prayers) 8am and the entrance of East gate of the Cathedral. ME: I have been there a couple of times and my sister and nephew are members there. In any case, your point is that I must have been to a Roman Catholic Church before what I say about it can be true? Do you REALLY think that, Jason? To be fair, there are situations which require genba (Japanese for "to be present where it occur") and genbutsu ("to hold actual object"). When I was a quality engineer in a Japanese firm, we often discussed quality problems in a room. Everyone will bring their information to the table but there was a time we got so used to discussing the problem and solution that we could decide course of action WITHOUT actually seeing the defective samples or going to the production line to observe the surrounding. It is like a CID officer solving a murder in Orchard Road without seeing the weapon, victim and without actually going to the crime scene, but simply in his office. So, we have this poster everywhere that reads Shop floor - GENBA, Product - GENBUTSU, The facts - GENJITSU to remind us. I worked 10 years as a quality engineer there. The reason I elaborate this is to show you that I am fully aware of the importance of being there and holding the actual object when it is necessary. The question then, in our context here, is do I need to be in a Roman Catholic Church in order to know what the Church teaches? Do I need to worship for a day, a week or a month at St Andrew's in order to know the tenets of Anglicanism? The answer is no. If I wanted to know what the common Roman Catholic or Anglican, or the average Roman Catholic Church or Anglican Church, ACTUALLY DO during their service or classes, then YES, I would need to be there and not just listen to, say, yourself or Interested or Tuck Leong's account. I would need to see for myself what actually goes on. But even if I do visit and participate in these churches, does it mean that what I see is what the Church believes and teaches? For instance, if I step into a Roman Catholic Church and see someone prostrating himself before the statue of Mary and offering prayers, or I see another insisting on making an "offering" to the Church for saying mass for his dead relative, would I be justified to say, "There, you see! Roman Catholics pray to Mary and pay for mass. Irrefutable proof." What would you think of me, Jason? Not objective right? Even naive to mistake the "malpractices" for the Church's beliefs. And what do you think I should do? Talk to the parish priest, perhaps? OK. Now if I do that and the priest tells me that yes, they do pray to Mary and in fact they do accept offering for mass but it is not payment. Am I then justified to take his words as the official stand of the Roman Catholic Church? You may say yes but I am sure informed Roman Catholics will tell you no. Roman Catholic clergy and laity hold to many different interpretations and beliefs. Just visit the RC discussion forums, or read RC magazines, journals, and you will find the differences. Now, isn't it clear to you by now that the authoritative source of information on Roman Catholicism is best gotten from official nihil obstat (without error) publications of the Vatican as enshrined in their decrees, catechism and encyclicals? And that is EXACTLY what I have done. YOU: I am not defending catholics, I am once like you until I myself went to a Masses at Christ the King catholic church near my house and observe their practises. The only thing I dis-favor is that the priest himself drank the blood of Christ instead of sharing and they consider Communion as sacrifices. ME: Jason, can you see now what I mean? What can you gather with regards to Roman Catholic DOCTRINE by your visit to the ROman Catholic Church? DO you know why the priest alone drank the "blood" and why they consider the eucharist as sacrifice? And by that visit, are you sure that whatever conclusions you draw from what you see are faithful interpretation of what the Roman Catholic Church actually teaches? You were once like me? Sorry I can't see the similarities. While I have been to Reformed, Baptist, Charismatic, Anglican and Methodist churches for more than just one visit, I admit that I have not participated in a Roman Catholic mass, service, etc. So, I am not an armchair apologist - I do practice genba, genbutsu and genjitsu. It's just that in discussing orthoDOXY, it is more important to study the OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. If we are discussing orthoPRAXY, then it would be important to visit the site. YOU: Instead of getting external infomation, I suggest that you personally make an effort to One of the Catholic churches, see with your eyes and and hear with your ears. Then you can start saying! If doubt, challenge their sisters and priests! ME: You obviously didn't realise the SOURCE of my information. You have jumped to the stereotyped conclusion that any critical information about Roman Catholicism is borne out of ignorance or hearsay or folklore. The fact of the matter is that YOU would be more likely to fall into this trap of misrepresenting and misunderstanding ROman Catholicism if all you do is just visit the Roman Catholic Church and observe. I have told you what you see may be "malpractices" that the average Roman Catholic misinterpreted from his priest. And even asking the priest is no guarantee his interpretation is correct. To further illustrate this, I personally know of someone in an orthodox Protestant church who thinks that all the Chinese deities live alongside Jesus in heaven! If you had met this person while visiting that church, would you have believed that this church actually teaches such a thing? My advice to you - if you want to know what Roman Catholicism teaches, the one from Rome, the one that the Pope approves, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the Canons and Decrees of Trent, Vatican I and II, and the Papal Encyclicals. YOU: call me to meet me This Sunday? I mean no harm but willingness to know you and let you see for yourself! ME: By now, you should know that there is no need for that. Instead, if you really like to know more about official Roman Catholicism, I would be glad to meet you and discuss. Your place, my place - doesn't matter. Finally, Jason, I seldom spend so much time writing this kind of reply. Many of these things are self-evident and common knowledge to the frequent forumers here, including Matthew Tan. Hence, there is really no need for me to be so lor-sor but I feel that your attitude makes you vulnerable and easy picking for Roman Catholic propaganda. If you meet Roman Catholics with so little preparation, I believe soon you will leave the Anglican Church and that would be tragic. The forumer who calls himself "Interested" is an Anglican. Since I am not an Anglican, it is fair that you do not trust my words. But if you really want to check me out or check what I say, please at least hear your fellow Anglican's view, not just Matthew Tan's. Please talk to Interested. He has no email but if you post here in Antioch, I am sure he will reply. You said before you are a Christian and ANglican. My reply was, "Better stay this way." I say the same thing again. Christopher
|
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page