Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
Although I did not address my question to you, I'll ask you now. Why do you care what "we" believe? You have made it a point to say "Your Ante-Nicene fathers", and "your magisterium", so clearly you are not Catholic. so according to you, Catholics believe in myth. Again, why do you care?
Now how about answering a question that I have directed at you, are you a Christian?
St. Jerome did not exercise any personal judgement when he translated the Old Testament Vulgate: he simply translated the Septuagint, which included the Deuterocanonical books.
The canon was well established prior to Jerome's work, albeit not formally till early 400 at Carthage. The crieteria for inclusion were verifiability of source, a link to the apostles, and doctrinal solidity of content. Works that would be useful but did not directly relate to the deposit of faith left by Christ were not included, no matter how convenient politically it would have been to include them. For example, there was a lot of consideration done to the letter of Clement to Corinthians: it served the papacy well and contained much theological teaching, and was quite early. But Clement was no apostle, and so the letter was secondary in its theology. It was not included.
what they claim in there could hardly be relied upon by a historian
Some of the apocryphal Acts I read, and some contain accounts that a modern reader would see as fantastic. However, they are still evidence inasmuch as they also refer to hard facts. We are religion of miracles and a church of miracles. It makes little sense, for example, to discard a biography of an apostle (forget which one) as a whole because it contains the unlikely story how that apostle first baptized a lion, and then encountered the same lion in the circus.
Well, there is something we can agree on. To read some of these posts, the most brilliant individuals off all time are posting on Free Republic.
The issue of Peter in relation to Paul is a purely scriptural issue, and I only refer to the scripture in discussing it. Perhaps IsCool misunderstood me in thinking that I intentionally overlook verses like Gal 2:7; I believe my response to him in 190 disabused him of that notion. My one point here is that Paul sought the approval of the "pillars", which shows that he needed one. My second point is that Peter was not sidelined to preach exclusively to the Jews because scripture tells us he in fact was the one who converted the first Gentile, Cornelius. None of this constitutes any kind of "Catholic dogma" in the same sense as what we discussed with you, William, not long ago.
With you we discussed veneration of saints. As you recall, I admit that it was an aspect of Christian faith scantily covered by the scripture and that largely relies on the teaching of the Church. The shape of that argument was that I showed you scripture which explains that the teaching of the Church can, and in fact should apply to parts of the faith that the scripture is silent about. This is the case with the nature of intercessory prayer. It is not the case with simple historical accounts of who sent whom where to preach what and to whom.
You lost that argument on scriptural grounds ("enough wiggle room in the scripture", you said) and now you try to direct attention to what you imagine my motivational framework is. Not that I mind discussing my persona, but what you are offering is an evasion.
I think based upon v12 Paul is making a point that whenever Christians get together they are blessed and find comfort with one another (present Freepers site excluded-oh, just kidding). A "where two or three are gathered there am I..." type of thing.
It's kind of like listening to a missionary or an out of town preacher and how it stirs your soul. It's somewhat special. Now, of course no one has every asked an out-of-town church accountant to speak so my analogy may not go very far.
Thanks, St.Therese is my favorite Saint.
From what I'm reading, there is a whole lot of ego and not alot of charity. I really don't understand why the Catholic threads always get hijacked like this. I've read numerous Protestant posts, and I've never seen anything like this on their posts. I would never go to those posts and start throwing "Biblical punches" at them.
As to why? I am a genuine truthseeker in search of evidence for a claim that your magisterium has made for 1500 years. If it is true, then prove it.
Post the "words" from Scripture or sacred Tradition of your Ante-Nicene Fathers that prove your claim. Otherwise you have a claim without evidence, and many within and without your church will be seeing, some for the first time, how empty that claim is.
Anti-Catholic bigotry is very popular here.
I can only speak for myself here, and I realize this post is not directed at me, but in general, I have rarely seen where Christians find comfort on these posts. I don't think non-Christians would bash each other the way I have seen it here. And I would also like to say, wherever I may have contributed to that I am truly sorry, and that apology goes to anyone I may have offended. What concerns me is that if a non-Christian were browsing these posts, after about 5 min. I think they would run screaming in the other direction, and I for one couldn't blame them.
Otherwise it is an open thread, and challenges are allowed because open threads are like town squares.
The closed thread, e.g. caucus, will be honored (challenges pulled) as long as it is not used as "base camp" to make sniper attacks on anyone else's confession.
You are asking me to make an extra-scriptural speculation here. One thing we can notice is that the given by Christ name Peter, which was to associate Simon bar Jonas with Christ's Church, was used here as well as "Simon". So, if anyone were to make a point that the promise of Christ to build His Church on Peter was somehow rescinded, -- this proves that hypothesis wrong.
The dialog in John 21 had two purposes. One was to give Peter an opportunity to repair the effect of his betrayal. The other was to reappoint him as the Prince of the Apostles. It is possible to read into the frequent use of Peter's birth name a rebuke. If that is your inclination, I agree that it is a possibility. But let us not forget that Evangelist John continues to call Simon bar Jonas Peter throughout; another explanation, and the one I would prefer, is that Christ simply echoes His original call to Simon.
Often, another aspect of that exchange is brought up, and that is the use of words for "love". While Jesus says "agapas" -- do you love me with divine love?, Peter resonds with "philao" -- I love you with highest form of human love. This shows precision on the part of the Evangelist, -- the conversation was likely taking place in Hebrew or Aramaic where the distinction does not exist. However, the use of words here is sometimes brought up as an indication that Peter's love was in some sense not matching Christ's love, -- which is of course very true, -- but the leap is made to suggest that Peter in fact denied Christ by htese words, which is without warrant.
For starters, you are confusing me with someone else. I am not interested in proving anything to you. Believe what you want to believe, that's what I do.
You can post whatever you wish to prove your point. If you think that is going to shake my faith, you will be sadly mistaken.
Now, since you won't answer my question as to whether or not you are a Christian, I will assume the answer is no. Because as far as I can see, you have posted nothing that would show otherwise.
His words are the recorded words, but I agree, the scripture points to a debate that is not recorded.
a pastoral letter from one Church to another
Cortinth is not in Roman bishopric. The letter is a demand, not an advice. Have you read it? The papal supremacy is likened there to Aaron pulling the larger stick from among the 12 tribal priests.
Even your assumptions are incorrect.
Thank you for clarifying that. However, I still stand by my claim that attacks on Catholics are much more prevalent on here. But,thick skin and all that, right? ;)
If you wish. I rarely argue about words. The point is, St. Paul needed the "approval", because without it he would be just another preacher without a visible link to the Church.
My assumptions are incorrect? Really? Well then to quote you, prove it.
Seriously, I have a legitimate reason for asking that question. I'm trying to understand the reasons for all your posts. And your claim that you are a truth seeker ain't making it. all you have done is ridicule others for their beliefs.
I don't have a problem with it, I was simply agreeing with Lil Flower's observation that Catholic threads seem to get "hijacked" more frequently than Protestant thread. However, as you have mentioned, there is a great deal of theological disagreement among Protestants and they probably hijack each others threads more than Catholics are aware.
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.