Chasing White Rabbits

Alan, AKA "Rhology" said:
> Sorry, I did not mean to mix up priest with bishop.
> My apologies.

Accepted.

Secondly, the "tool of Satan" approach I accused you of relates to the fact that you are shotgunning this discussion. If you do not wish to have this label put upon you - then I suggest you stick to the point and avoid distractions and confusion tactics.

> There is one point to most of my post, addressed from
> various angles, and then the 2nd part is devoted to
> answering you on Eph 2. I'm a bit distressed to learn
> you think this is a "tool of Satan" approach

Distraction and confusion are tools of the Father of Confusion. If you use his tools on me, I'll call you on it.

> (in this comment you're hardly a model of restraint
> and civility),

I answered you frankly so that you might see that you were engaging in such "tools" - and to HELP you focus your discussion better.

> especially since you were the one who mixed the
> two issues into one post on this very blog.

Whoa! It was YOU who referred to the Eph. 2 post in the middle of your questioning me about private interpretation! I was RESPONDING to YOUR post from the BA blog!

> You apparently have difficulty following lines of
> argumentation, as I've noticed in 3 different ways
> during even his brief interaction.
> 1) You forgot or neglected to mention who was
> the one who mixed the topics to begin with.

I forgot nothing and didn't think I would have to mention that it was YOU who introduced the Eph. 2 post in the matter of the private interpretation discussion. I am not the one who appears to be having difficulty following the lines of argumentation and after that false accusation, an apology from you would be in order - if you're into being civil, that is.

> 2) You have at least twice shown poor recognition
> of the fact that I was performing an internal critique
> of the RC position, as indicated by, for example, a
> boldfaced word in the first comment you replied to.

Since when does a "boldfaced word" indicate an internal critique? Boldfaced words mean emphasis.

> 3) You are unable to see how my "8 different
> questions" all converge on a single topic - the
> relation of Old Covenant to your exegesis of Eph 2.

As I pointed out, there were at least 5 different topics among those 8 questions. Let me enumerate for you:

1) Questions 1-3 and 8 were all on "works of the Law" vs. "good works."

2) Question 4 was asking about my sons (a personal question).

3) Question 5 asked about how we (Catholics) solved the problem the Jews have regarding having no Temple to perform sacrifices.

4) Question 6 asks why Catholics don't celebrate Yom Kippur?

5) Question 7 asked about graven images.

Now yes, you COULD tie all these together, well, all but question 7 - which is wholly a different subject, as "works of the Law" TYPE questions - but you go
off on WILD tangents ranging from a personal question to a "no Temple" question, to a non-celebration of a Jewish holiday. These are distractions from the subject at hand.

> But if it makes you feel better to go all "you speak
> as Satan speaks!!!!11" on me, I suppose that's
> your prerogative.

I didn't say those words - I said you were using his tools. If you don't want to be so accused, stop using his tools.

> You said:
>> First off, you cited the argument you use - you
>> did not cite a specific example of a Catholic
>> using the argumentation you allege we use.
>
> The examples are virtually innumerable.

That's beside the point. You presented an unsubstantiated assertion - and I called you on it.

> Example one: We can see that this sole rule of
> faith called "Scripture alone", is shaping up to be,
> "my personal interpretation alone".
> Example two: See the quotes from Steve Ray.
> So, so many comments from RCs in the Beggars
> All comboxes.
> An example from the very thread in which you
> were recently involved.
> It is virtually indistinguishable, at any rate, from
> the RC claim that the Scripture is not formally
> sufficient/perspicuous.

Vague references to entire postings or entire threads of discussion don't cut it as documentation. You provided me with three links, but only one undocumented quote from the first link. I'm not going to be doing your homework for you, Alan.

> You said:
>> For St. Jerome, he was acting in his own
>> personal judgment/interpretation.
>
> OK, now how do you know that is true? (I'd say
> this is at the very heart of the real issue I was
> targeting when we originally talked.)

It sure sounds like St. Jerome was unilaterally acting in the quote you provided. Did he consult the elders of that congregation before acting? Or, did he just
walk in and start ripping things down? Did he consult with the local bishop? Did he consult with ANYONE?


> You said:
>> For the first quote from St. Irenaeus - I am not
>> sure what your getting at here.
>
> You use images in worship.

No I don't. There may be some around, but I don't
"use them" in "worship."

> But look, I'm not going to get enmeshed in this
> icon/idol debate here. That's been done before.
> Isn't it interesting, though, how all of a sudden
> you're shotgunning? Hmm...

Hmmmm, it was YOUR "shotgunning" which *I* was pointing out! You're NOW admitting that this topic of icon/idol is a different subject which you do not wish to "get enmeshed in" - so I'll accept that as your concession of introducing distraction topics. I certainly did not bring up this topic originally!

> You said:
>> You rip quotes from their place in time and then
>> you seem to be attacking 21st century Catholics
>> because YOU feel in YOUR perception that
>> there's the same sort of thing going on and
>> you wish to condemn it.
>
> Now you're claiming mind-reading powers.

No Alan, I am merely responding to your off-topic distractions and pointing out to you how not only are they off-topic, but anachronistic.

> You know, since you brought up this whole
> "tool of Satan" thing, isn't sorcery and magic
> mind-reading/ESP a Satanic activity?

I exposed the "tool of Satan" tactics you were implementing. You can choose to stop using them, or continue using them to your own peril. That's your choice. It has nothing to do with mind-reading, sorcery or ESP.

> Now, at the risk of inciting your wrath for moving
> to a topic that you yourself addressed in the
> same post as another topic once upon a time, I'd
> like to talk about your reaction to Eph 2.

We'll do that in another post. This particular one has enough rabbit holes to confuse even Alice's White Rabbit.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<