Posted on 01/27/2007 10:04:44 AM PST by Gamecock
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on Pro-Life or Catholic threads.
Why not? I see that exact behavior daily on FR
Are you saying I'm on your list?
Is there any reason you dislike the Catholic Church? It's just that I'm positive this isn't the first one you've posted.
Yes, that would be the same William Webster who was exposed as an outright liar in a recent thread, isn't it? He had edited the writings of a Catholic saint to make it appear that the saint was denying the Assumption of Mary, even though the saint was asserting the Assumption. That's an intellectual gold mine, you've got there.
Essentially, on a previous post ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1773583/posts ), Webster quoted St. Epiphanius as saying, essentially, "we don't know what happened to Mary when she died"; whereas what St. Epiphanius said was, "we don't know what happened to Mary when she died, but we do know she was assumed into Heaven."
Likewise, he asserted St. Jerome denied the Assumption of Mary, when, in fact, St. Jerome credited her appearance to him as preventing him from believing the Hebrew's misstatements about the meaning of "a virgin shall give birth."
The very title of the article stated that two popes condemned the doctrine of the assumption of Mary as heretical, when in fact, they only called a 5th-century, fictional book about Mary a heresy. Of course, Webster claimed that this book was the source of the doctrine of the assumption, which was either a falsified hostorical presumption, or a blatant lie.
Yes, that William Webster, what a valuable tool of Satan he was.
(Was this William Webster the same con man who wrote "Consequences of Trade to the Wealth and Strength of any Nation, by a Draper of London," and then wrote "The Draper Confuted" under a different pseudonym? The ethics and intellectual honesty of such a man is astounding!)
Nope. Not unless you ask to be.
Thanks, Gamecock. Hope I'm up to it (smile).xxx
I attended a lovely memorial service for a Catholic friend at the university today. She died very suddenly of a massive stroke and heart attack just before Christmas. Afterwards I complimented the Catholic chaplain on the service. I mentioned that she, a Catholic, and I, a born again protestant shared our faith with eachother freely. He and I both agreed that IF we can keep our eyes on Jesus, the rest of the stuff doesn't really matter and it doesn't enter into it. We should be embracing our alikeness instead of our differences, which is divisive. Now, given my personality, that's not easy, but I believe it's necessary in today's world. satan would love nothing more than to have us fighting all the time. he must be absolutely delighted on these threads. Mxxx
Them's fightin' words, dangus. We are NOT anti-historialists nor are we anti-itellectualists. You are a bad boy (or girl).
Ping to #20
Everything that is contrary to right reason is sin. Accordingly, therefore, the philosophers think fit to define the most generic passions thus: lust, as desire disobedient to reason; fear, as weakness disobedient to reason; pleasure, as an elation of the spirit disobedient to reason. If, then, disobedience in reference to reason is the generating cause of sin, how shall we escape the conclusion, that obedience to reason--the Word--which we call faith, will of necessity be the efficacious cause of duty? For virtue itself is a state of the soul rendered harmonious by reason in respect to the whole life. Nay, to crown all, philosophy itself is pronounced to be the cultivation of right reason; so that, necessarily, whatever is done through error of reason is transgression, and is rightly called, (amarthma) sin. Since, then, the first man sinned and disobeyed God, it is said, "And man became like to the beasts:" being rightly regarded as irrational, he is likened to the beasts. Whence Wisdom says: "The horse for covering; the libidinous and the adulturer is become like to an irrational beast." Wherefore also it is added: "He neighs, whoever may be sitting on him." The man, it is meant, no longer speaks; for he who transgresses against reason is no longer rational, but an irrational animal, given up to lusts by which he is ridden (as a horse by his rider).
But that which is done right, in obedience to reason, the followers of the Stoics call proshkon and kaqhkon, that is, incumbent and fitting. What is fitting is incumbent. And obedience is founded on commands. And these being, as they are, the same as counsels--having truth for their aim, train up to the ultimate goal of aspiration, which is conceived of as the end (telos). And the end of piety is eternal rest in God. And the beginning of eternity is our end. The right operation of piety perfects duty by works; whence, according to just reasoning, duties consist in actions, not in sayings. And Christian conduct is the Operation of the rational soul in accordance with a correct judgment and aspiration after the truth, which attains its destined end through the body, the soul's consort and ally. Virtue is a will in conformity to God and Christ in life, rightly adjusted to life everlasting. For the life of Christians, in which we are now trained, is a system of reasonable actions--that is, of those things taught by the Word--an unfailing energy which we have called faith. The system is the commandments of the Lord, which, being divine statues and spiritual counsels, have been written for ourselves, being adapted for ourselves and our neighbours. Moreover, they turn back on us, as the ball rebounds on him that throws it by the repercussion. Whence also duties are essential for divine discipline, as being enjoined by God, and furnished for our salvation. And since, of those things which are necessary, some relate only to life here, and others, which relate to the blessed life yonder, wing us for flight hence; so, in an analogous manner, of duties, some are ordained with reference to life, others for the blessed life. The commandments issued with respect to natural life are published to the multitude; but those that are suited for living well, and from which eternal life springs, we have to consider, as in a sketch, as we read them out of the Scriptures. Clement of Alexandria-Book 1
Good point.
Check your freepmail
As true today as it was three days ago.
Knowing full well it is a lie, you repeat it anyway.
We disagree.
Discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal.
The author's point here is 100% right. So Catholic apologists should make every effort not to use the word "proof" because it sets up an impossible standard.
I think this author makes an interesting point overall. I'll have to read it more in-depth, but just off the top of my head, I'll offer this: the Fathers are admittedly not infallible. They made mistakes, said things they shouldn't have said, etc. So yes, one has to be careful in using them.
Basically I'd say this. If all of the Fathers *agree* on something, we should probably agree on it as well: because if we don't it probably means there's been some kind of novelty introduced somewhere along the line. If the Fathers disagree, well then there's more room for debate.
Any comments on that assessment?
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.