- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Actor Shia LeBeouf converts to Catholicism
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:30 am to KiwiHead
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:30 am to KiwiHead
Slate has an interesting article-- Calls his conversion "controversial" because the conversion is due to the Latin Mass.
https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/08/shia-labeouf-catholicism-conversion-latin-mass-scandal-explained.html
https://slate.com/human-interest/2022/08/shia-labeouf-catholicism-conversion-latin-mass-scandal-explained.html
quote:
Catholicism, with its teachings on sin, confession, and forgiveness, gave him comfort. “It was seeing other people who have sinned beyond anything I could ever conceptualize also being found in Christ that made me feel like, ‘Oh, that gives me hope,’” LaBeouf said in the interview.
quote:
that he converted, in large part, because of the Latin Mass. “While we were practicing Latin Mass, I was having genuine emotional experiences,” LaBeouf said in the YouTube interview... This makes sense: if someone was drawn into Catholicism specifically, it would track that the elements that differentiate it more strongly from Protestantism—the rituals, the antiquity, the mysticism—would be a significant part of that appeal.
1
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:32 am to FooManChoo
quote:
All Scripture is breathed out by God
At the time this was written the only Scripture in existence was the Old Testament, which for the Greek and Aramaic speaking Jews of that time, included the Deuterocanon books that Martin Luther later deleted from his Bible when he edited the Bible about 1,500 years after the Timothy letter.
Most importantly, the original Greek of this Timothy letter is best translated to mean that Scripture is "useful" and "profitable". It is NOT and NEVER was interpreted as a Proof Text for the "Scripture Alone" crowd for over 1,500 years after the Timothy letter was dictated by Paul and carried to Timothy.
The website Catholic Answers.com explains all of this in very thorough fashion, for anybody who is interested.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 8:35 am
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:43 am to RollTide1987
quote:
Says who?
There you go.
It was Tim, and Tim would know.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:44 am to DisplacedBuckeye
Holy shite, this is still going down? It is apparent that Foo is just reading off what he thinks a Catholic is and what they believe.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:48 am to CorchJay
quote:
Nothing was passed to The Catholic Church. It’s a writing of history from the people in power hiding behind the might of the Roman Empire.
Wrong - Matthew 16:18 where Jesus tells Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Catholics interpret the verse as saying that Jesus would build his church on Peter, the apostle: Jesus told Peter (Rock) that he would build his Church on this Rock (Peter), and that Peter was made the shepherd of the apostolic flock – hence their assertion of the Primacy of the Catholic Pontif
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:52 am to CorchJay
quote:
Those that didn’t believe what Rome taught was killed. Crusades anyone?
Those weren't fought the kill anti-catholics. They were fought to secure control of the Holy sites that Catholics and Muslims both considered to be sacred.
quote:
Stop thinking there is a governmental church on earth that is the church
Matthew 18:15-17 tells us of a visible and hierarchical church.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 8:59 am to UGATiger26
quote:
Saw you edited. Nm as well then.
I misread your post
Posted on 8/29/22 at 9:33 am to UGATiger26
Yep. Really insulting the beliefs is something that we Catholics do to ourselves....and we are really good at it. Protestants have had maybe 500 years to develop dark humor.....We Catholics have had at least 1800 - 2000 years to almost perfect it. Jews are the masters of the craft....4000 years.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 9:39 am to Champagne
quote:I'm aware of how expensive it was to make copies of things. My comment wasn't meant to imply that it was cheap to copy texts. That wasn't my point. In the Roman Empire during the time of the early Church, there is evidence to suggest that basic literacy was fairly common. The NT was originally written in Koine (common) Greek for the common person, and the early church fathers encouraged the lay people to read the Bible. That practice ended around the advent of the Middle Ages due to restrictions by Rome put on ownership and reading of the Bible for lay people.
Factually and historically wrong. This is a complete fabrication. Anybody with a rudimentary knowledge of the History of the Western World would know this.
In the ancient days of the Church, there were no books. Only scrolls. In the synagogues and Christian Churchs they used either nothing or a scroll or two to preach and teach.
The Gospel was spread by mouth and by deed, not by any book. There were no books. All books had to be written by a Scribe, and there were very few of these folks.
Modern scholarship demonstrates that the cost of making even one copy of one of Paul's longer letters would cost hundreds and maybe even a couple of thousand dollars in today's money. Back then, regular citizens didn't have that kind of money.
During the Protestant Reformation, there was a huge push for literacy specifically because the Bible was translated into the common languages of the people and the leaders wanted the people to be able to read the Bible for themselves. As I said, even slaves were encouraged to read by many Christian slave owners because of the desire for the slaves to be saved and be able to read the Bible.
quote:This confirms to me that you don't understand what "scripture alone" means. It doesn't mean that every person had access to it, but that scripture was the final authority for the Christian, whether they could read it for themselves or not.
This reality - the reality that there were very few scrolls and books and only learned clergy and a few other specialists could read and write prose - this historical reality persisted into Modern times - LONG after the printing press was invented in the 1400s. That's why "Scripture Alone" is impossible. God would not require an impossibility. That would be absolutely illogical and that's not God's nature. The people of all of those many hundreds of years could not abide by Scripture Alone because they could not read well enough for it to be possible, or they had no access to any books, not even the Bible.
The printing press made books (especially Bibles) cheaper to reproduce and easier to get into the hands of people, for sure, but that happened in spite of Rome's insistence that the common people shouldn't read it.
quote:It certainly wasn't spread by the written word once Rome became closer in form to what it is today, as they barred the common person from access to it.
The Gospel was spread by the Church by mouth (preaching) and by deed (Celebration and Sacrifice of the Mass).
quote:I already went over this with you. You are blind to the truth and I will pray that the Lord opens your eyes. For someone who keeps saying things like "factually and historically wrong", you are awfully quick to lie and misrepresent history.
Scripture Alone was impossible. Scripture Alone as a doctrine is not proven anywhere in the Bible. Martin Luther invented it - the same guy who said that Jesus Christ had sexual intercourse with Mary Magdalene and other women He met in the Bible.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 9:45 am to Champagne
quote:False. Paul is writing about a category of writing (whatever is considered scripture). He wasn't saying that specific writings at the time were the only ones that counted. Even Peter compared Paul's writings with "scripture", so that, at least for Peter, Paul's writings would be included with Paul's statement.
At the time this was written the only Scripture in existence was the Old Testament, which for the Greek and Aramaic speaking Jews of that time, included the Deuterocanon books that Martin Luther later deleted from his Bible when he edited the Bible about 1,500 years after the Timothy letter.
I've already shown that the Apocrypha was not considered scripture by the Jews or many in the early Church. You need to stop spreading that lie now that you've seen what the truth is.
quote:Again, I've already shown how your interpretation is flawed and missing the point. "Useful" and "profitable" were not meant to minimize the use of the scriptures, but to highlight what they do. You also seem to be purposefully ignoring the "complete" and "every good work" parts of that passage that actually refute what you're saying.
Most importantly, the original Greek of this Timothy letter is best translated to mean that Scripture is "useful" and "profitable". It is NOT and NEVER was interpreted as a Proof Text for the "Scripture Alone" crowd for over 1,500 years after the Timothy letter was dictated by Paul and carried to Timothy.
quote:Yes, Catholic Answers.com does a fantastic job of perverting the scriptures to support Rome's position on Tradition.
The website Catholic Answers.com explains all of this in very thorough fashion, for anybody who is interested.
My arguments are founded in the scriptures, not tradition. My traditions are governed by the scriptures, not the other way around.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 9:46 am to saints5021
quote:If I'm misrepresenting anything Catholicism teaches, please let me know. I don't wish to misrepresent them at all.
Holy shite, this is still going down? It is apparent that Foo is just reading off what he thinks a Catholic is and what they believe.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 9:54 am to AubieinNC2009
quote:That's such a bad interpretation, though. Essentially the whole of Catholicism is derived from this one verse.
Wrong - Matthew 16:18 where Jesus tells Peter: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Catholics interpret the verse as saying that Jesus would build his church on Peter, the apostle: Jesus told Peter (Rock) that he would build his Church on this Rock (Peter), and that Peter was made the shepherd of the apostolic flock – hence their assertion of the Primacy of the Catholic Pontif
An alternate interpretation is that Jesus is saying Peter's testimony is the foundation or rock of the Church. This makes much more sense given the rest of the NT, and especially the places where the disciples squabble over who is the going to sit at Christ's right hand (this should've been settled if Rome's interpretation is correct). And then you have the events described in the other books, like Acts, and the epistles that actually seem to show Paul as being the preeminent apostle, especially to the Gentiles. Peter was sent to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles. The Council of Jerusalem in Acts also doesn't show Peter as having preeminence. And even if Peter did have preeminence among the apostles, it wouldn't prove that his preeminence was passed down to any successors.
The papacy as we know it today didn't even exist for centuries. Initially churches were elder led, and then bishops began having authority over regions, and then they started showing deference to the bishop of Rome as a "first among equals", and then finally the bishop of Rome became the head of the church. It was a gradual development that isn't shown anywhere in the scriptures, but is assumed based on tradition and a perversion of a single text of the Bible.
This post was edited on 8/29/22 at 9:56 am
Posted on 8/29/22 at 10:33 am to FooManChoo
Sola Scriptura is anarchic. So you are saying that you (I ) alone am responsible for determining the true meaning of a passage. Talk about chaos. But wait, you say the Holy Spirit is giving you the truth, which is what a Brother once told me is dangerous in that you become the self appointed landlord of the Truth! Remember the devil knows scripture as well, probably better than you or I. Peter said interpreting scripture can be be difficult and at times it ends badly.
Sola Scriptura is historically problematic. Thomas when he went to India did not have Luke's gospel. Peter did not have Paul's letters when he went to Antioch. So much of the Bible was based on oral tradition. It's not until Constantine convenes the Council of Nicea that we have any organization of the Bible or any agreement as to what gospels were " valid" or for that matter what epistles would be included
Given that, you come closer to traditions in Islam. Where Mohammed after being " devastated" by God in the cave, comes upon the Angel Gabriel who then orders him to " recite " and he writes the Sura's of the Koran. Hey Mohammed was visited by the almighty, who are we to question his interpretation.
Since you claim a person who is visited by the Holy Spirit is saved and alone has authority to interpret for himself scripture, then what do you say to those individuals who may find aspects of the Gospels and Epistles problematic to their new worldview? Case in point the Eucharist. Jesus had a last supper he did all those things, why are you not making that a part of EVERY Protestant service? I mean is it also Sola Luther....Sola Calvin ( Calvin would think he was the authority on interpretation.....you better agree or he would have you arrested) ....or even more to this conversation, why not Sola Ego which you contend .... you just don't say it.
Hey guys look at me!!!! The Holy Spirit justified me and I am now the authority on all things pertaining to scripture and Christianity and being saved etc. Got a beef with that, take it up with the Holy Spirit. Well, what about your neighbor who also claims the same experience and listens to you and the comes to the conclusion that you are an Arian heretic ( you're not).
What makes you so competent to freely interpret? Like I said, Landlord of the Truth?
Sola Scriptura is historically problematic. Thomas when he went to India did not have Luke's gospel. Peter did not have Paul's letters when he went to Antioch. So much of the Bible was based on oral tradition. It's not until Constantine convenes the Council of Nicea that we have any organization of the Bible or any agreement as to what gospels were " valid" or for that matter what epistles would be included
Given that, you come closer to traditions in Islam. Where Mohammed after being " devastated" by God in the cave, comes upon the Angel Gabriel who then orders him to " recite " and he writes the Sura's of the Koran. Hey Mohammed was visited by the almighty, who are we to question his interpretation.
Since you claim a person who is visited by the Holy Spirit is saved and alone has authority to interpret for himself scripture, then what do you say to those individuals who may find aspects of the Gospels and Epistles problematic to their new worldview? Case in point the Eucharist. Jesus had a last supper he did all those things, why are you not making that a part of EVERY Protestant service? I mean is it also Sola Luther....Sola Calvin ( Calvin would think he was the authority on interpretation.....you better agree or he would have you arrested) ....or even more to this conversation, why not Sola Ego which you contend .... you just don't say it.
Hey guys look at me!!!! The Holy Spirit justified me and I am now the authority on all things pertaining to scripture and Christianity and being saved etc. Got a beef with that, take it up with the Holy Spirit. Well, what about your neighbor who also claims the same experience and listens to you and the comes to the conclusion that you are an Arian heretic ( you're not).
What makes you so competent to freely interpret? Like I said, Landlord of the Truth?
Posted on 8/29/22 at 10:45 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Sola Scriptura is anarchic. So you are saying that you (I ) alone am responsible for determining the true meaning of a passage. Talk about chaos. But wait, you say the Holy Spirit is giving you the truth, which is what a Brother once told me is dangerous in that you become the self appointed landlord of the Truth! Remember the devil knows scripture as well, probably better than you or I. Peter said interpreting scripture can be be difficult and at times it ends badly.
So an individual filled with the Holy Spirit and using his Bible can’t decipher what is the will of God for his life and what scripture means, but another man who is supposedly also filled with the Holy Sprit can?
This makes no sense.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 10:56 am to Zephyrius
From a Catholic perspective, I don't see what is controversial about it is the least. He goes for the Latin, some like Wahlberg go for the straight up vernacular. There is nothing procedurally different. I will say this those that become attached to the Latin Mass very much prefer it.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 11:07 am to Revelator
Relying on the subjective is probably more than problematic and that is what Protestantism is based on. There has to be some hierarchical authority that is visible. So you have Joel Osteen and Steve Gaines both claiming authority but coming to different interpretations that are at times in opposition to each other. Both are filled with the Holy Spirit, are they both right even as they stand in opposition in key areas?
Posted on 8/29/22 at 12:33 pm to Revelator
quote:
an individual filled with the Holy Spirit and using his Bible can’t decipher what is the will of God for his life and what scripture means, but another man who is supposedly also filled with the Holy Sprit can?
Annnnddddd now you see the reason why Protestantism has devolved into thinly veiled moral relativism. Denominations have fallen and are ceeding more and more to man amd culture. How is it that such weighty issues as divorce, abortion, assisted suicide, trans surgery, gay "marriage", and contraception are now left up to individual to discern and interpret?
Was this the plan? Why have churches at all if the Protestant is bent on radical individuality where self+text is solely sufficient? The evil and sad details of the solas are the foundational role they play in the moral relativism of last modernist age. The solas give rise to a "personal" truth that is wholly fabricated in the eye of the beholder and independent of the Truth which lies outside of us and is both binding and observable to all. The RCC and Orthodox never lost their correct appreciation for the Natural Law and appreciation for mother Church. The Protestant is forced to allow and enable through accommodation the numerous abuses of scripture which we see wreaking havoc on denominations throughout the world.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 12:44 pm to CorchJay
quote:
Nothing was passed to The Catholic Church. It’s a writing of history from the people in power hiding behind the might of the Roman Empire
St Ignatius of Antioch and St Polycarp (who were disciples of John the Apostle) were certainly not "hiding" behind the power of Rome (unless you have a different view of their martyrdom).
Care to share your personal beliefs on the Eucharist? Do the numerous explicit descriptions of it/references to it in the NT back up your thoughts?
"Heretics abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ." St. Ignatius of Antioch, "Epistle to the Smyrneans," c. 105 A.D.
Posted on 8/29/22 at 12:57 pm to Revelator
quote:
I’ve already done this since I grew up Catholic and attended Catholic schools
I also was raised Catholic and fell away (to a few years amongst the reformed). I (with divine help and guidance) returned due in large part to an inability to reason away the disconnect between "bible alone" traditions and their unbiblical treatment of the Eucharist.
How much clearer could it be? How have so many allowed their denomination's little "t" tradition to completely disregard Jesus' own words in the Gospel?
Posted on 8/29/22 at 1:39 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
Joel Osteen and Steve Gaines both claiming authority but coming to different interpretations that are at times in opposition to each other. Both are filled with the Holy Spirit, are they both right even as they stand in opposition in key areas?
Are you trying to tell me the RCC has never changed it’s positions on certain doctrines throughout its history?
Page 19 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News