Posted on 09/27/2001 6:13:58 PM PDT by malakhi
"I have seen in the last week much ugly use of religion for chest thumping and blaming 'ragheads' and even blaming our decadence for the events of the last week. I would rather that we continue here, respectful of our unity in citizenship, in displaying how religion can be talked about without veering off into ugliness." (SoothingDave, 9/19/01) |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 149
But if one turned up in somebody's cesspool in Rome tomorrow, Havoc would still dismiss it as a Catholic plot. Even though it doesn't matter to his faith at all, we still have to be wrong.
SD
Going back to the scripture passages on Peter, as a person who is a mother-in-law to my sons'wives,a person who had a mother-in-law for fifteen years after my husband died and as a daughtter to a mother,my experience leads me to believe that the situation at Peter's house was highly unusual if his wife was still alive.
On the other hand if I put on my feminist hat, it could well be that waiting on the men was what put the mother-in=law into her sick bed to begin with,then while she was abed Peter's wife had to serve the men and when mom-in-law recovered,Peter's wife took to the sick bed. Sounds like I may have just hit on the truth.(tongue in cheek)
I and other Catholics have presented you with the facts. The fact that you choose to ignore the evidence is certainly your perogative. But I must tell you, your theory about Peter never being in Rome and writing his letters from Babylon would make more sense if you could tell us what Babylon that would be. That way we could trace his journeys and see if it makes sense. We could also compare this to the historical record to validate your theory and document who said Peter was in Babylon. But since you cant or wont do that all you have proven is you dont let facts affect your opinions. That's not serious scholarship but I suspect you know that.
Your theory on Peter's mother-in-law is interesting, about the serving, etc. Keep in mind that Peter being married and having a wife is not an impediment to his being the first Pope. Priestly celibacy was a later development in the West.
SD
I know that whether or not Peter was or was not married at the time of the Bible event is of little matter in the "big picture". Thats one of the beauties of the Catholic Church,despite what appears to an outsider as a rigidity and demand for conformity it leaves a lot of room for enlightening discussions about a plethora of things. It also clearly states those things that are foundational and must be believed because they are "what is",so to speak.
Sarah, yes, is my daughter. She just came to visit me at work. Unfortunately, she had fallen asleep on the way over and didn't want to show her beautiful eyes to anyone. Sarah is Hebrew for "princess" and I couldn't think of a more fitting name.
SD
LOL. Ok ok, I'll bite. The reference from which that came was the quotation re the limitation of one wife. The verse says what it says. Whether it demands a single wife or restricts to a single wife is not at issue. This verse flatly says that pastors, bishops, etc. can be married. And there is nothing in the bible saying otherwise. Now, that's straight from the Bible (Word of God). Thus if God said it, that ends it - what anyone thinks about it is moot. My comment had nothing to do with interpretation. Try again.. LOL. Boy are you guys fishing for something to complain about now.
And doesn't Paul write -- again, straight from God, mind you -- that Christians should be the same, slave or free, Jew or Greek?
Well then, the Bible obviously says that slavery is OK. There's nothing in the Bible at all saying slavery is bad. God said it, I believe it, that ends it.
SD
That be me. Mamma didn't raise no fool.
SD
Forgive me if the subject has been previously covered; but, I fail to see whether Peter was ever in Rome is germane to the validity of the Papacy. Peter could been in Rome. He could have been the first (or second) Bishop of Rome. He could have died in Rome. Any, or all, of this could be true and it still doesn't have any bearing on whether Christ actually established a Papacy. Does it?
pegleg, I think this is very disingenuous to throw out 10 or 11 so called proofs, and then expect the ones that you are trying to prove a point to, to look them all up and read them to find that magic phrase you claim will clear everything up.
If you are going to make the assertion that these writings will back you up, why don't you copy and paste it, and save us a lot of trouble, and it won't look as much like you are trying to stall and get away from the subject.
I believe that whenever I make a claim from an author I put it out for you to see, please show us the same respect.
What are you Aha-ing. That I made a statement that you rejected? It actually does go to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. Major, Minor or in between that is the only significance I think the immediate claim has. And what do you mean all that? LOL. Are we talking about a mythical mountain of facts yet to be produced. Don't tell me, let me guess, you guys are keeping the really good stuff to surprise us with...
You think you could overthrow the Papacy. Well, let me enlighten you. The primacy of Peter does not rest on his physical location, but on whether or not Jesus appointed him to the office.
Uh oh, conspiracy nut. The world is out to overthrow the Papacy because I asked for proof of Peter being in Rome. You're being a little over dramatic there, allend. Take a minute and put yourself back together.. LOL. And as an aside if you want to talk about Peter's primacy or that of the bishop of Rome we can address that later. Right now we're supposed to be concentrating on providing a fact that shows Peter was ever in Rome.
If Jesus did in fact do that, then Peter's location is irrevelant. If anyone could prove that Peter was not in Rome, all that would prove is the the tradition of having the Pope as Bishop of Rome started later than Peter. It would not compromise the office of Pope.
My, do you seem paranoid all of a sudden. LOL. Still waiting on that one fact. Who's Got the Fact, does Dave have it. Did it get sucked up by the magical mystery vacuum? Lose it in the sock that didn't come back out of the dryer? Please let us know when the search partys come back with it. I would hate to miss such an occasion.
Please go back to thread 149 post 120. There you will find my links. Click on Romulus1 or ThomasMore and you will find the names with dates, references etc.
Sorry, I thought you knew that.
Osama bin Laden has allegedly denied any involvement in the US terror attacks and pointed the finger at Jews.
His reasoning is that Florida's Jewish community has not forgiven President Bush for his controversial state victory in the US election, an Urdu language newspaper reports.,?I>
I thought you might enjoy finding out what really happened, this is on the Drudge Report, watch out angelo. hahaha
What I'd like to know is how the Mossad tricked all those jihadist fanatics into doing their dirty work. Must've promised them extra virgins or something.
I gather you rather fancy swimming upstream, shouting in the wilderness. The more points you can prove yourself right and the rest of the world wrong, the more you know you are truly one of the chosen ones, with the secret "true" knowledge.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.