Posted on 03/02/2009 11:00:55 AM PST by Coleus
I am not making an argument from tradition in itself: what I am saying is that the fathers of the Church (Sts Irenaeus, Ignatius were 2c, not AD 500) are likely to reflect the intention of the inspired writer who lived in the same culture and used the same language just a few generations before them. They all believed in hierarchical sacramental church lead by bishops. The Liturgy centered around the Eucharist. Faith was inseparable from works. Episcopal authority was that of Christ. The Early Church was Catholic and Orthodox; the Protestant ideas are not in evidence, even though we have a good idea what heresies were around.
>> They all believed in hierarchical sacramental church lead by bishops. The Liturgy centered around the Eucharist. Faith was inseparable from works.
The religious contrivances of men far predated the birth of Christ. Christianity was clearly not immune.
SnakeDoc
Longnecker is an evolutionist. ‘Nuff said.
So that is the asymmetry: we have historical continuity, and you have to dismiss that as an error that started as soon as the Early Church started. It is not just “you interpret, we interpret”.
Did the author marry outside of his race? If single, does he date outside of his race? If the answer to both is ‘no’, is he willing to apologize for his racism?
>> It is not just “you interpret, we interpret”.
Actually, it is exactly that.
SnakeDoc
>> It is not just “you interpret, we interpret”.
Actually, it is exactly that — and, it always was. It simply took several centuries for rank-and-file Christians to figure that out.
To me “the early church” is far less relevant than the words of Christ Himself. Our devotion is not to the church (early or otherwise), and I see no reason that it should be. The men of the early church were simply men ... Christ was/is God.
It seems very clear to me from Christ’s ministry that Christianity was intended to be a bottom-up religion — with the least of us being as important, and as connected to Him, as the leaders of the church.
No conduit to God is necessary. No man (or group of men) speaks for Christ, and none (not even the Pope) can be any more connected than you or I.
SnakeDoc
Sorry for the double post.
SnakeDoc
Here is an explanation of Papal infallibility that may help you understand the Catholic position better. You may still disagree but it helps to understand what the other guy actually believes rather than what you think he believes.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
I hope this helps FRiend.
If someone calls you a Satan worshiper it wouldn’t get your dander up?
He is a priest. He’s not married at all.
Thanks for the link. My understanding of the doctrine was pretty much as noted in the attached link. And, as you noted, I still disagree.
SnakeDoc
There are only a handful of states wherein 17 is below the age of consent.
“If someone calls you a Satan worshiper it wouldn’t get your dander up?”
How many Christians can dig up the past of the Catholic Church and get their dander up? It’s a waste of time and unproductive. Being neither Catholic or Calvinist, I just blame Augustine, and stay out of it.
Race, ethnic background, Catholic... but why does he never mention the Mormons? Bob Jones is just as anti-Mormon as it is anti-Catholic. In fact Bob Jones equates Mormons with Catholics.
As recently as 2005 in the 'Presidents Corner' of the Bob Jones website was an article that appeared there for over ten years where Bob Jones III himself calls Catholicism and Mormonism. "cults which call themselves Christian". Even today the university equates Mormonism and Catholicism with a long list of other cults and teaches that they are cults... But the author never mentions Mormons. Why?
I believe the author to be entirely disingenuous in his call for Bob Jones to turn away from anti-Catholicism. Why does he not include Mormonism, Jehovah Witnesses and all the other Christian denominations that Bob Jones labels as cults? -- Perhaps he knows that too many Catholics view these denominations in the same light as does Bob Jones University and doesn't want to highlight his and other Catholics hypocrisy on this issue.
If you are not willing to give up your anti-Mormonism, anti-JWs, anti-Protestantism, how can you sincerely ask someone else to give up their anti-Catholicism?
He's ex-protestant. A fair number of ex-protestant priests come equipped with a wife.
17 is the age of consent in Hawaii. So I guess BHO, Sr. is hereby acquitted of the statutory rape charge. And I reckon we can't charge a dead man with bigamy.
In future, I shall refer all such matters of faith or morals to the Religion Department of Bob Jones University, as they are closer than Rome and can reply in English.
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.