A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[JacktheCatholic]

For me, it is nothing more or less than what the title of the thread says/asks.

That my friend is exactly what I have tried to stay true to since the beginning.

Sad to say people see the miracles and workings of God as 'myth' or 'legend' and lack the faith to see everything is possible with God.

I am not a miracle worker...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

1. David had a key; Peter had keyS.
2. David's power was political; Peter's is spiritual.
3. Keys are used as a metaphor elsewhere in scripture to refer to neither of these men.

Do you care to discuss these holes in your theory?

I would be happy to discuss this further.

I give you leave to start with these "holes" you speak of.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There is no allusion to the SEAT of Peter in scripture.

Of course Tradition makes these truths easier to understand and accept when one keeps the Sacred Traditions as well.

But one allusion is when Jesus says to do as the Pharisees teach becasue they sit on the chair of Moses.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

The gates of hell obviously have not not prevailed against Christ's Church...

What little Faith.

Jesus said in Matthew 16 that the church would stand against the gates of hell. Guess what? The church has been standing and growing since it was started (either pentecost or Jesus bleeding by the side). God Bless the Catholic Church the bride of Christ! Wow!!! That feels good. The Holy Spirit loves that!

 

[Albion]

I think we are at the point where we have to admit to what is the case here.

We are not engaged in any discussion about the Papal claims, although that is what the thread is supposed to be about. Jack has been merely trying out the stuff he'd learned in Inquirer's Class on the rest of us, confident that all non-Catholics are just ignorant or willfully heretical. That's what he was taught, after all, and he's eager to believe it so.

We have an inexperienced person who recently joined a faith he'd known little about previously. He uncritically drank in everything that was told him and, not having been a well-trained member of his previous church, he can't see anything but what he's been told most recently, including the fact that it can't be wrong. He knows little of Church history or practice, and he approaches scripture exclusively on the basis of what his church tells him it says.

Despite that, we might have hoped that he'd at least be willing to discuss the subject of this thread. After all, that was his request to us.

Because, however, he is afraid to do so lest it threaten his confidence in every last thing he's been taught, it's pointless for us to go further.

As we know, there are Catholics, clergy even, who can see the human failings in every church, the warts along with the glories in every denomination, and still favor the Church of Rome on balance. That's not the case with the new and true blue convert for whom it's all been made so simple.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/color]

And . . . seriously . . . I can't take Dave Armstrong . . . or Karl Keating (I've actually read Catholicism and Fundamentalism--the whole book) . . . oh, and Steve Ray.

OK...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

[/color]
That's because he is only addressing what Cyprian and Augustine actually taught and believed.

Really??? The writings only tell us so much for sure. Scholars have researched this far more extensively then you and me and probably all of us in this thread combined. Both Protestant and Catholic Scholars agree to the Keys and their meaning and the Seat of Peter.

What you are saying here "actually taught and believed" would imply that this James guy was performing necromancy and communicated with these ECFs from the dead. For no one can KNOW what they ACTUALLY believed except God and the ECF themselves.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Jack,

When I say I read Keating’s book, I mean it. I’ve read other books by other Catholics, also. I didn’t really care for Keating or Hahn. But, there was one guy I read whom I found to be very informative. He wasn’t bitter, condescending or critical of his Protestant Counter parts. But, it’s been so long since I read the book I can’t remember his name.

You are letting your dislike/distrust of James White to blind you to what he is actually arguing. You are only hurting yourself by doing this.

From what I have read I do not think he is being fully honest with everyone. I think he is selling many people something they want to hear and making a lot of money doing it. That is why I see him as a wolf surrounded by sheep.

I meant not offence and I take no offence at your dislike of some of the Catholic authors.

I have to say that Scott Hahn is one of my favorites. His conversion story is nice to ehar and I myself am a convert. When I first heard Scott's "the fourth cup" I had shivers. Personal revelation does that to me...

 

[racer]

Really??? The writings only tell us so much for sure. Scholars have researched this far more extensively then you and me and probably all of us in this thread combined.

Uh huh, and James White and Joseph von Dollinger are/were Scholars, both of which you’ve scoffed at because they dared to believe differently than you and your church.

Both Protestant and Catholic Scholars agree to the Keys and their meaning and the Seat of Peter.

Good grief! You’re kidding . . . right?

What you are saying here "actually taught and believed" would imply that this James guy was performing necromancy and communicated with these ECFs from the dead.

Look, are you willing to engage in a genuine conversation or are you just going to continue making absurd and ridiculous remarks which nobody in their right mind can take seriously.

For no one can KNOW what they ACTUALLY believed except God and the ECF themselves.

Funny you should make this particular point . . . because that’s pretty much the way I feel about the RCC proclaiming certain deceased people as Saints--this is an assertion that they now sit in heaven. But, I won’t dare accuse the RCC of practicing necromancy. That just wouldn’t be polite.

 

[racer]

I have to say that Scott Hahn is one of my favorites. His conversion story is nice to ehar and I myself am a convert. When I first heard Scott's "the fourth cup" I had shivers. Personal revelation does that to me...

Scott Hahn is just dripping with extra sweet syrup. He’s slick and patronizing. I don’t care for his approach, beseeching his fellow Catholics not to judge we sadly misinformed Protestants too harshly . . . for we know not what we do.

I wish I could remember the other guys name. He was strait forward non-critical, non-insulting, and he certaingly did not patronize others.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I think we are at the point where we have to admit to what is the case here.

We are not engaged in any discussion about the Papal claims, although that is what the thread is supposed to be about. Jack has been merely trying out the stuff he'd learned in Inquirer's Class on the rest of us, confident that all non-Catholics are just ignorant or willfully heretical. That's what he was taught, after all, and he's eager to believe it so.

We have an inexperienced person who recently joined a faith he'd known little about previously. He uncritically drank in everything that was told him and, not having been a well-trained member of his previous church, he can't see anything but what he's been told most recently, including the fact that it can't be wrong. He knows little of Church history or practice, and he approaches scripture exclusively on the basis of what his church tells him it says.

Despite that, we might have hoped that he'd at least be willing to discuss the subject of this thread. After all, that was his request to us.

Because, however, he is afraid to do so lest it threaten his confidence in every last thing he's been taught, it's pointless for us to go further.

As we know, there are Catholics, clergy even, who can see the human failings in every church, the warts along with the glories in every denomination, and still favor the Church of Rome on balance. That's not the case with the new and true blue convert for whom it's all been made so simple.

I do not appreciate the slander you are making at my expense.

I find your remarks to be childish and they are against forum rules. Try be more mature about these discussions.

I suspect your anger and insults derive from your inability to understand what I am saying and so you are feeling inadequate and so you want to make me feel how you feel.

It is better to step back for a moment and collect yourself. I usually pray in those times.

Peace bro

 

[Albion]

I do not appreciate the slander you are making at my expense.

I find your remarks to be childish and they are against forum rules. Try be more mature about these discussions.

I suspect your anger and insults derive from your inability to understand what I am saying and so you are feeling inadequate and so you want to make me feel how you feel.

It is better to step back for a moment and collect yourself. I usually pray in those times.

Peace bro

Try not to take yourself too seriously, my friend.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Uh huh, and James White and Joseph von Dollinger are/were Scholars, both of which you’ve scoffed at because they dared to believe differently than you and your church.

I "scoff" (as you say) at them because they are too arrogant to think they may be wrong or maybe they know that they are wrong and intentionally mislead other Protestants out of some earthly desire(s). * see PS

They are no different then Luther who saw some wrongs and tried to make it better. But in their journeys to bring truth they bring lies. We can see historically how Luther cast away teachings of the Catholic Church only to later reintroduce them. Why? Because he was not as smart or knowledgable as he thought.

Seems to me the ONE TRUTH we have is that God protects the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think the saying "It will stand against the gates of hell" has been proven True with the Catholic Church.

I pray I never fall victim to this self righteous arrogance that has led some brilliant men away from the Catholic Church.


*PS

I forget which CD I was listening to and it may have been Scott Hahn. But he told a story of a Protestant lecture he went to and he asked the speaker some questions and addressed some things that the Catholic Church taught and the speaker's teaching against this Catholic teaching. While on the stand the speaker refuted every claim with much bravoda and dismissing every truth with a line he created well before the event. After the show the Catholic questioner asked the speaker how he could ignore some of the simple truths of the Catholic Church that the questioner had mentioned while the speaker was on the stage? The Protestant speaker advised that these simple truths of the Catholic Church are truths that he cannot refute and knows to be true but that he dislikes the Catholic Church so much that he has no problems tellings his lies if it hurts the Catholic Church. Seems to me this Protestant speaker is hurting the Truth and possibly affecting the chances his Protestant listeners have at salvation.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Try not to take yourself too seriously, my friend.

When we were children we thought as children do.

I am grown now and think as an adult. If that is "too serious" then maybe you should be looking in the mirror?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Good grief! You’re kidding . . . right?

I borrowed this from another thread to answer your question:

According to Protestant SBible Scholars.

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.

(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter.

(J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)


The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,' was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.

(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)


Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God's people.

(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of 'keys' (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a 'delegation' of God's sovereignty.

(R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)


The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)


For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are "over the house," "steward," or "governor." In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible} ​

2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version} ​

3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version} ​

4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible} ​

5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible} ​

6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt} ​

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.


(Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)



I can show how the First Fathers of the Church interpreted this also but it's obvious Jesus does not give the keys of the kingdom “to his Apostles.” Jesus gives the keys to Peter alone. If Jesus really gives Peter alone the keys, then it looks like Peter has special authority that the other apostles do not have.What "role" did Christ give "individually" to Peter? Well, in Matthew 16:17-19, Christ individually imparts to Peter the office of "Rock," "Key-bearer," and the authority to "bind and loosen." Also, in Luke 22:31-32, the Lord individually imparts to Peter the task of strengthening his brethren (i.e. the other Apostles). Also, in John 21:15-19, the Lord makes Peter a shepherd, telling him three times to "feed my lambs" and "tend my sheep."Peter unlocks the door to the Gentiles because he is the one with the keys. Unlocking the door to the Gentiles is a divine act that only Jesus can do, and yet Peter performs the act. Why? Because Jesus delegated divine authority to Peter, and Peter acts in Jesus’ name. Also, note that the authority to “bind and loose” is not limited to “unlocking the door to the Gentiles.” It also refers to declaring dogmatic and disciplinary decrees as well as forgiving and retaining sin (which is set forth in the passage John 20:21-23).

The Greek uses the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding and loosing from Peter. This is an incredible statement that Jesus makes. Heaven will ratify Peter’s binding and loosing decisions. But in order for this to be true, Peter must be prevented from teaching error, for God cannot lie. Thus, God must penetrate the mind of Peter (just as He did when Peter confessed Jesus as the Messiah) and prevent him from teaching error. Otherwise, Jesus could not make such a sweeping promise. All this supports the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

 

[racer]

I "scoff" (as you say) at them because they are too arrogant to think they may be wrong or maybe they know that they are wrong and intentionally mislead other Protestants out of some earthly desire(s). * see PS

Um . . . *I hate to use this cliché, but the situation calls for it* “Pot—meet kettle.”

You know this statement makes no sense. Neither of these men, especially Von Dollinger are simply spouting their opinions. They both have/had done extensive research and study in Church history. I won’t say that White’s motives were completely non-biased, but Von Dollinger was a very devout Catholic. Yes, he was excommunicated, but he was still very devoted in his faith. He disagreed with the dogma of Papal Infallibility—with very good reason.

They are no different then Luther who saw some wrongs and tried to make it better. But in their journeys to bring truth they bring lies. We can see historically how Luther cast away teachings of the Catholic Church only to later reintroduce them. Why? Because he was not as smart or knowledgable as he thought.

What qualifies you to judge these men? What qualifies you to determine which of them are right and which are wrong? How long have you been studying Church history? How long have you been Catholic.

Seems to me the ONE TRUTH we have is that God protects the teachings of the Catholic Church. I think the saying "It will stand against the gates of hell" has been proven True with the Catholic Church.

You are putting your own spin on the very words of God—a very dangerous thing to do.

I pray I never fall victim to this self righteous arrogance that has led some brilliant men away from the Catholic Church.

Too late.

*PS

I forget which CD I was listening to and it may have been Scott Hahn. But he told a story of a Protestant lecture he went to and he asked the speaker some questions and addressed some things that the Catholic Church taught and the speaker's teaching against this Catholic teaching. While on the stand the speaker refuted every claim with much bravoda and dismissing every truth with a line he created well before the event. After the show the Catholic questioner asked the speaker how he could ignore some of the simple truths of the Catholic Church that the questioner had mentioned while the speaker was on the stage? The Protestant speaker advised that these simple truths of the Catholic Church are truths that he cannot refute and knows to be true but that he dislikes the Catholic Church so much that he has no problems tellings his lies if it hurts the Catholic Church. Seems to me this Protestant speaker is hurting the Truth and possibly affecting the chances his Protestant listeners have at salvation.

I guess you missed the part where I said I’m familiar with Mr. Hahn . . . .

 

[racer]

I borrowed this from another thread to answer your question:

[/size]

Let me guess, the poster of this information was dear Trento?

 

[racer]

Here are some points from Jason Engwer’s series “Catholic but Not Roman Catholic.”

http://www.ntrmin.org/catholic_but_not_roman_catholic_01.htm

5/21/02

Irenaeus said that the Roman church is the greatest church, and that all other churches must agree with the Roman church. Because of a papacy? No, but because of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church's location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus viewed the Roman church as authoritative *not* because of any papacy, but because of practical factors such as the fact that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome, thereby making the Roman church representative of worldwide Christian consensus. Thus, the Roman primacy of Irenaeus was practical rather than jurisdictional. Since Rome is no longer the capital of a major empire, and many Roman bishops since Irenaeus' time have been unfaithful to apostolic teaching, Irenaeus' argument doesn't apply today as it did in the second century. Not only does Irenaeus give non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance, but he also suggests that the apostles, not just Peter, appointed Linus as bishop of Rome *while Peter was still alive*. After mentioning the Roman church, Irenaeus goes on to say that Christians can also turn to the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus for sound doctrine. When's the last time you heard a Catholic appeal to the authority and infallibility of Smyrna or Ephesus? They only follow the portions of Irenaeus that seem to support Roman Catholicism, while rejecting the rest. For more about the meaning and significance of this passage in Irenaeus, see:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-61.htm#P7966_2192965

Here's Irenaeus explaining the non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate....But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics....There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)

5/22/02

Tertullian explains that the Roman church is one apostolic church among others, and he gives non-papal reasons for its significance:

"Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; and there too you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority of apostles themselves. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile! See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even our churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus born of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water of baptism, arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus maintained she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; they come from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show." (The Prescription Against Heretics, 36)



5/23/02

Like the apostle Paul, the church father Ignatius wrote a lot about church government without ever mentioning a papacy. He frequently writes about the authority of the local bishop, which he apparently considered the highest church office. Thus, in the introduction of his letter to Polycarp, he writes, "to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ". When he was on his way to Rome to be martyred, Ignatius wrote to several churches. He wanted those churches to care for his church in Antioch, which would be left without a bishop as a result of his execution. When the local bishop dies, the only bishop the church has is God:

"Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it." (Epistle to the Romans, shorter version, 9)

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Let me guess, the poster of this information was dear Trento?

Yep

I like Trento even if his posts get hard to read with all the different text and colors.

 

[Albion]

When we were children we thought as children do.

I am grown now and think as an adult.

...and that's why you picture yourself as a cartoon character in knightly attire calling yourself "Jack the Catholic" I would guess?

You have a nice day now, "Sir Jack," and may all your crusades be fun.