Posted on 05/20/2008 7:45:05 AM PDT by NYer
Did you just call Christianity a denomination of Judaism?
The Jerusalem Council, by the way, is evidence that at least as far as the "denomination" of Apostles James and Peter and Paul were concerned, the Church did not practice Sola Scriptura, -- they abolished the fundamental scriptural principles of circumcision and abstinence from pork at that council, and no one is recorded to raise an objection from the scripture.
But the bigger point is the distinction between "professionals" and the "rest of us".
I think that Protestants generally underestimate the influence of lay-people in the Catholic Church throughout the ages. Yeah as time went by the were sort of kind of incorporated, so that, say Catherine of Siena was a thrid order or Lay Dominican. But we're (or those of us who care to be) are in the loop, if not at the top of the putative pyramid.
My longer response, which may never see the light of day, to your first post was going to address that, sort of global or attitudinal question. I'm also thinking of Ambrose's election to bishop by acclamation of das volk and, yes, of gthe Jerusakem council where I could readily see the people being polled for their opinion.
And the peristent (It seems to me) opinion of Protestants is that a bunch of guys in dresses hang around and dream stuff up to inflict on the poor innocouous lay Catholic, but I think that ignores the realities of running any eleemosynary institution or indeed of most institutions. On paper the Sheriff can do what he wants as far as who his deputies are and what they do, but if he decides (reasonably IMHO) that they ought to be in good shape and he meets with almos tuniversal resistance, that decision will find itself functionally if not officially rescinded. And the wise pastor takes the temperature of his sheep before inflicting some new change on them. There ARE a lot of unwise pastors, both real and metaphorical, but the unwise ones don't last.
I'm going to sit back and watch the "denomination" question, but I don't think it's worth a big controversy and in fact it's kind of like what we papists mean by "rite", as in "Eastern Rite"
“In all seriosity”
I’m wondering if you have any advice on how to stretch my little finger to the 6th fret of the 6th string while my index finger is on the 1st of the 6th string. Take into consideration that I have normal size hands.
Shall we now go poison some more wells?
Sure, why not. I'm used to it. In fact at this moment I am drinking a Shipyard Brown Ale in lieu of water.
(1)Exercise for, like, 40 years. Hold your index finger on your desk and tie your exhaustive concordance to the pinkie and take up a little slack every day. If that doesn’t work add your IDB one volume at a time.
NO, really. You’ll thank me some day.
(2)Buy a ukelele.
This must have been prior to the time Peter knew he was the boss.
“Did you just call Christianity a denomination of Judaism?”
No, actually it was another denomination within Christianity; one that men would no longer be physically afraid of joining.
But it wasn’t a denomination: the optionality of circumcision and pork abstinence was established for the entire Church, in complete disregard of the Scripture.
Try #1077
There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.
That was your response to my 1069. That seems to me intended to characterize ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church, on the basis that if NO statement, etc. IS, then ALL statements, etc. are NOT.
In #1039 You wrote
I'm afraid you know as little concerning "infallibility" as the typical Catholic. That is by design. Leave it vague enough that it may be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.So you yourself expanded the subject under discussion from the particular one of papal or conciliar infallibility to any Catholic doctrine whatsoever.
That must be some good beer.
Maybe we'd better give this a rest until later, or at least until you address #1054 on the subject of Honorius, which as I recall — no doubt in error, you brought up as suggesting that we might have had a conflict between two infallibles.
Of course, we might also examine the difference between "I don't understand it" and "It's purposefully unclear."
There’s a clear and not all that unusual parliamentary difference between president over a meeting and boss. I was recently a voice but no vote member of the board of a foundation which operated its meetings that way.
No, not completely. Some of them happened onto a meeting of Free Republic Protestants, who did NOT, however, hate them. In any case, they were never heard from again.
"It's purposely made unclear so you won't understand."
I think the interesting question (and probably one that won’t be able to be discussed here) was when Jewish Christians stopped getting circumcised. I’m wondering about a son born in the household of a couple of Jewish converts to Xty. Is there any info on this?
I don’t know. Interesting that St. Timothy was circumcised by Apostle Paul just so that he could bring Timothy to the Jewish temple. Timothy’s father was Greek and Timothy was not originally circumcised (Acts 16).
Thank you both, my brothers in Christ, for sharing your insights!
Hi - I just read your post from back on May 20th regarding us Protestants being heretics.
I had to write because what you said just cracked me up. I was thinking something similar. Like, “dang,” I was okay until I read this stuff and now I’m, as you said, “screwed.”
I had a good laugh and after reading all of this heavy stuff, it was well-needed.
Thanks. Being old, I had forgotten all about this, and now you’ve brought it back to mind, thus perfecting again my heresy.
Fortunately, I will probably forget this again tomorrow.
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.