| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 01/26/2004 9:33:25 AM PST by Sidebar Moderator, reason:
This thread is now locked. It has served its purpose. thank you all for your participation and patience. |
Posted on 01/22/2004 6:34:29 PM PST by Sidebar Moderator
Well, there wasn't much of a list in 67 AD when he and St. Peter, our first pope were both executed. But, as to the various roles that people serve in the body of the Church;
1 Corinthians 28. "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues."
Various popes have served in all those capacities throughout history, though I imagine the gifts of administration would be essential to their official capacity.
Speaking of the Body of the Church, we had some applicable readings on that today at mass.
Our good Freeper, Salvation is kind enough to post daily mass readings here on Free Republic. Not only is it a blessing to Catholics and other interested Christians, but it has served to help dismiss the false myth that Catholics don't read the Holy Bible.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1064870/posts
However, please read your Catechism citations one more time and explain to me the difference between the use of the words "on" and "of". Please note especially the careful wording of #552. A cursory reading might lead you to believe the Church was built on Peter. Such is not the case.
Well..... ya sure cudda fooled ME!!
I can see where it IS a bit hard trying to uphold your unscriptural temple rites, after one has taken a vow not to discuss them outside of the 'faithful'.
Is this considered 'inflammatory'?
I grew up in that organization. Hmmmm. Must be saved.
BTW I was asking the catholic if he thought it was possible to be saved if you weren't a catholic and had no intention of ever being one. He didn't answer. He referred me to a web site where, upon quick glance, it appears that it would be impossible for me to be saved unless I submitted to the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Well that's just peachy fine with me, if they want to think that. I just think that if someone questions their salvation that they don't go running and crying to the moderator every time the subject comes up. Obviously AT LEAST one of us is wrong. So if we want to seek the truth, then we have to risk the possiblity that we are going to be offended when we hear it.
Then let's DO this.
One account is from Matthew, one from Luke. So, I don't know how it is possible to put them into chronic logical order. I stated them in an order which makes logical sense, and I'm not a biblical scholar or familiar with what they say on this subject.
If you want to believe it is James, so be it. That's one of the things that is different between you and me.
Objective Freepers can read our exchange and decide for themselves as well.
Shalom
Is this anything like Jumbo Shrimp or
Military Intelligence?
Sure you merely mean 'myth'; for a 'false myth' would equal truth!
Doubt...is daring the soul to go beyond what the eyes have plainly read.
Food for thought:
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’...’You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15 - 19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
"Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).
Maybe, but I doubt it is a mischarateriztion
"Hyprocrisy" is your false charge.
No, it's self-evident. How many "Servetus" threads have you posted on?
Your use of my phrase "poisoned bait" implies that when I post on a thread (especially if it is deemed to be "gleefully"), that should be considered the poison.
No, as usual you have it wrong. My use of your phrase, "poisen bait", was used as a comparison to when you and your ilk post historical commentaries on John Calvin. If I acted like you I would cry to the moderators that these commentaries were "poisen bait" against Calvinism. Since I prefer not to act with such peruile behavior I do not cry to the Mods.
This post is not one where the abuse button should be pushed. It does not "rise to that level", but it is inappropriate.
If it is inppropriate then the abuse button should be pushed. You seem confused. If the Mods want to employ a form of Mormon legalism then I suppose they will act.
See how you mislead and distort truth!
SM This is the kind of example the LDS has to endur these smear and hate fill buzzed words to attract others to have contempt for the LDS!
Minds like these were respondsible for the LDS to be driven from one state to another to live under duress and the fear of extermination!
The rest of the post is fine: you cut and pasted the comment to which you were replying, and you stated your objection to the facts as represented. Presumably the next thing to happen would be for each of you to present documentation or citation to prove one case or the other.
The comments I have italicized do nothing but continue personal attacks.
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.