Posted on 12/16/2006 1:07:45 PM PST by Zemo
And I stand by that statement.
Here is what you are not getting - it was also the Western tradition.
What you can't claim is that it was the Western tradition from the start only from the Middle Ages onward.
So what Latin Church was more correct the one before married clergy? or after they were forbidden/restricted?
You wrote: "Then present your argument about what two greek words there are and what they mean."
No. 1) There is no argument nor did I claim there was. There are simply different words. That's all there is. 2) It is pointless to do so given your prior posts. 3) I choose what I post, when I want to post and how I post (with the moderator's indulgence of course!).
"I've read the two scriptures in dispute in english as translated by the King James 1611 version of the bible and they are basically saying that Jesus Christ is the foundation of the Church."
You read the 1611 version? I doubt it. You probably mean the 1769, but whatever. In any case, the very statement you just made shows I would be wasting my time. I already told you, more than once I believe, that the two verses were NOT about the same thing. For you to continue to insist they are, when the very wording of the verses disagree, shows me it would be a waste of my time.
"Jesus is the Church."
No. The Church is the Body of Christ. It is not that Jesus is the Church, but that the Church is the Body of Christ. The very fact that you can't distinguish what needs to be distinguished proves to me that I am making the right choice here. Thanks.
In terms of the priesthood? Yup.
There is no church without Jesus.
I don't. I can't see the Orthodox in union with the Frankish-Latins if the Latins still embrace such errors as filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, original sin and the infallibility and position of the pope. At least the Catholics got rid of limbo so maybe there is hope for them yet..
Irenaeus says flatly that Peter and Paul established the church at Rome.
Do I really need to post the quote again?
You wrote:
"So what Latin Church was more correct the one before married clergy?"
Both are correct. Neither is wrong. Your question is much like: "Have you stopped beating your wife?" The only possible answer (unless you're a wifebeater) is, "I still beat her at checkers all the time"!
"...or after they were forbidden/restricted?"
Marriage among priests is no more restricted in the Catholic Church than in the Orthodox Churches. None marry. If they are ordained, they don't marry. That is simply the fact of the matter.
Which was my point all along.
You wrote: "I don't. I can't see the Orthodox in union with the Frankish-Latins if the Latins still embrace such errors as filioque, purgatory, immaculate conception, original sin and the infallibility and position of the pope. At least the Catholics got rid of limbo so maybe there is hope for them yet.."
Got rid of limbo? No, didn't happen. Please learn to read.
Also, plenty of Orthodox bishops were in union with the Catholic Church in the 15th century and they didn't seem to have qualms about some of the issues you cited. Also, there are Orthodox out there who say these issues, or at least most of them, are not issues at all.
Maybe you should read more -- before you post.
You wrote:
"Which was my point all along."
Then you're posts are pointless because there is no double-standard.
All the sarcastic comments in the world can't change the historical fact that Babylon was in ruins by the time the NT was written, and the fact that the Iraqi church has no tradition of being founded by St. Peter.
No? I am sure limbo was placed in limno! Well then that is another wall between the Orthodox and Franko-Latins that won't allow any sort of union.
You wrote:
"No? I am sure limbo was placed in limno! Well then that is another wall between the Orthodox and Franko-Latins that won't allow any sort of union."
Not true. 1) Limbo has never heen an official teaching. It was not officially embraced or officially disavowed. 2) It thus doesn't stand in the way in itself. 3) No Orthodox entity can really claim it is since it is not an official teaching. 4) Limbo was popularly held when the Orthodox reconciled in the 1430's, 1560's and even more recently. It clearly is not a big deal either way.
Ever read Ephesians 5?
You wrote: "Ever read Ephesians 5?"
Yes. How about you?
I've been accused of all sorts of things on FR. That I'm prideful, unlearned, etc. But yes, I've read it. Esp. Ephesians 5:24. But we keep discussing about which Bible I read and about greek words that are never posted in this thread.
Please respond to post 292 before insulting more posters. Thank you.
A good overview of the history is here. It lists the individual schools and the towns where they were located, which don't include Babylon.
You just have to wade through all of the semantics before you can ask a question that they cannot dismiss by redirection.
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.