| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
That is a fanciful notion of those that keep Jesus on his mom's lap.
If I may, think about the instruction to turn the other cheek. We think it's about submission and accepting mistreatment. However, in the context of the time it's an act of defiance. IOW, by turning the other cheek you would have been challenging the authority of the other person.
Also, look at how Jesus dealt with the money changers in the temple. He did not ask them nicely to stop ripping people off. He beat the heck out of them.
Finally, look at Rev. 19. When Jesus returns His robe is dipped in blood from His trampling of the "winepress of the wrath of God". Jesus then slaughters His enemies with the "sword which proceeded from the Mouth".
I lean towards postmillennialism.
Come on over to some eschatology threads and we'll show you the error of your ways. :)
There was a time when I might have agreed with you. But after reading these many threads and comments over the years on FR, it’s become clear that at the heart of Rome’s error is its elevation of men to the status belonging to God alone.
The priest is not “another Christ.”
Mary is not a “co-redeemer.”
Dead saints now in heaven are not “mediators between God and men.”
And all of this is made known to us in Scripture, particularly in the teachings of Paul which RC apologists on this thread have rebuked.
Thus when RC apologists accept these erroneous, anti-Scriptural suppositions as fact, they leave themselves vulnerable to ignoring, excusing, defending and/or denying the obvious sins of the pederast priest and the papal bureaucracy that hides it.
- - -
INDEED.
I was MUCH more compassionate, consciliatory, understanding and forgiving toward the whole Vatican institution before I read sooooooooooooooooo MUCH and soooooooooooo OUTRAGEOUS a bunch of stuff hereon about what they believe, why and what they practice.
I was initially quite shocked. Then grieved. Now, it’s kind of a troublesome duty to help lurkers realize at least some degree of the outrageousness involved.
I'd check out my history before posting such things. The Archbishop of Canterbury himself led the synod enquiry into Wyclif's writings. Remember that French translations (the then language of the English court) were widely available at the time, and Wyclif was involved in official Church translations into then contemporary English. Wyclif angered the hierarchy by going after the Eucharist and the Mass. The Chancellor of Oxford spoke against him. The English hierarchy was very upset with him. This was in 1381 and was the final straw. He was brought to the Synod the next year, but was not arrested, nor persecuted.
Well they also pray to people we know are in hell, so thats no surprise
Paul never claimed to have written Hebrews although the book is consistent with his theology and knowledge of Jewish religious traditions. It is likely it was written by his close companion Barnabus, an educated Greek Jew.
I believe I read something years ago that made a pretty convincing argument that Barnabas could not have written Hebrews, but I don’t remember what the argument was. Martin Luther suggested that it was written by Apollos and made some good points, some have also made good arguments that it was written by Clement of Rome. I don’t think any scholars actually believe it was written by Paul, though many Christian leaders adhere to Pauline authorship based on tradition.
Barnabus traveled extensively with Paul and was taught by him. they were so close that the Greeks thought they were Greek gods, Daman and Pythias. Barnabus was an educated Greek Jew, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, when studied, shows itself to be written in a cultivated Greek style.
We're not sure about 1 Peter, but 2 Peter was written 50-100 years after Peter was martyred. The Gospel authors were not identified when written (a sign of arrogance and hubris). The Church put the names on them ca. 225 AD or so, IIRC.
As I said, it was something I read that argued very convincingly that Barnabas could not have written it, but I don’t recall the reasoning. Aside from that, I have always believed that Barnabas or someone very close to him was the most likely author. I believe others have suggested Luke, but the style seems totally different from his Gospel and Acts.
Ah, more injecting the separation of church and state into the 16th century, I see. Henry VIII was quite Catholic at the time, a Catholic king in a Catholic nation, the titular head of the Catholic Church in England.
Let's revisit this exhumation and posthumous trial thing, though. It's always bothered me, this seeming fixation on corpses, parting the "good" ones out and desecrating those who found themselves on the outs due to some temporary fit of pique despite being quite dead. What is or was the rationale? Does it have something to do with hoping to prevent their resurrection? I honestly can't say.
One of the more interesting articles I've ever read on the topic was first published on October 31, 2001, written by Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Professor of Law, University of Georgia School of Law.
The pertinent cite that arouses so much curiosity in me is as follows:
The Cadaver Synod occurred sometime in January 897 in the Church of St. John Lateran, the pope's official church in his capacity as Bishop of Rome. The defendant on trial was Formosus, an elderly pope who after a reign of five years had died April 4, 896 and been buried in St. Peter's Basilica. (According to P. G. Maxwell-Stuart's Chronicle of the Popes (1997), the name Formosus means "good-looking" in Latin.) The trial of Formosus was ordered by the reigning pontiff, Stephen VII, who had been prodded into issuing the order by a powerful Roman family dynasty and other anti-Formosus political factions, and who apparently also was personally motivated by what The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (1986) calls a "near-hysterical hatred [of Formosus]." Although Formosus had been, according to McBrien, "a man of exceptional intelligence, ability, and even sanctity, he [had] made some bitter political enemies ... including one of his successors, Stephen VII."
No trial transcript of the Cadaver Synod exists. Nonetheless, it is reasonably clear what happened. Sitting on a throne, Stephen VII personally presided over the proceeding. Also present as co-judges were a number of Roman clergy who were there under compulsion and out of fear. The trial began when the disinterred corpse of Formosus was carried into the courtroom. On Stephen VII's orders the putrescent corpse, which had been lying in its tomb for seven months, had been dressed in full pontifical vestments. The dead body was then propped up in a chair behind which stood a teenage deacon, quaking with fear, whose unenviable responsibility was to defend Formosus by speaking in his behalf. The presiding judge, Stephen VII, then read the three charges. Formosus was accused of (1) perjury, (2) coveting the papacy, and (3) violating church canons when he was elected pope.
The trial was completely dominated by Stephen VII, who overawed the assemblage with his frenzied tirades. While the frightened clergy silently watched in horror, Stephen VII screamed and raved, hurling insults at and mocking the rotting corpse. Occasionally, when the furious torrent of execrations and maledictions would die down momentarily, the deacon would stammer out a few words weakly denying the charges. When the grotesque farce concluded, Formosus was convicted on all counts by the court. The sentence imposed by Stephen VII was that all Formosus's acts and ordinations as pope be invalidated, that the three fingers of Formosus's right hand used to give papal blessings be hacked off, and that the body be stripped of its papal vestments, clad in the cheap garments of a lay person, and buried in a common grave. The sentence was rigorously executed. (The body was shortly exhumed and thrown into the Tiber, but a monk pulled it out of the river.)
Stephen VII's fanatical hatred of Formosus, his eerie decision to convene the Cadaver Synod in the first place, his even eerier decision to have Formosus' corpse brought into court, his maniacal conduct during the grisly proceeding, and his barbaric sentence that the corpse be abused and humiliated make it difficult to disagree with the historians who say that Stephen VII was stark, raving mad.
The Cadaver Synod was the cause of Stephen VII's prompt and precipitous downfall. The appalling trial and the savage mistreatment of Formosus's corpse provoked so much anger and outrage in Rome that within a few months there was a palace revolution and Stephen VII was deposed, stripped of his gorgeous pope's clothing and required to dress as a monk, imprisoned, and, some time in August 897, strangled.
Three months later another pope, Theodore II, whose pontificate lasted only 20 days, all in the month of November 897, held a synod which annulled the Cadaver Synod and fully rehabilitated Formosus. Theodore II also ordered that the body of Formosus be reverentially reburied. Therefore, according to Joseph S. Brusher's Popes Through the Ages (1980), the corpse was "brought back to [St. Peter's Basilica] in solemn procession. Once more clothed in the pontifical vestments, the body was placed before the Confession [the part of the high altar in which sacred relics were placed] of St. Peter's. There, in the presence of Pope Theodore II, a Mass was said for the soul of Formosus, and his poor battered body was restored to its own tomb."
The next pope, John IX, whose pontificate lasted from 898 to 900, also nullified the Cadaver Synod. At two synods convened by John IX, one in Rome, the other in Ravenna, the pronouncements of Theodore II's synod were confirmed, and any future trial of a dead person was prohibited.
Incredibly, however, this was not the end of disputes about the legality of the Cadaver Synod.
Sergius III, who was pope from 904 to 911, reversed the decisions of the synods of Theodore II and John IX by convening a synod which quashed their invalidations of the Cadaver Synod and reaffirmed Formosus's conviction and sentence. Sergius III even went so far as to place an epitaph on the tomb of Stephen VII which lauded that evident madman and heaped scorn on Formosus. According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Sergius III was a "violent hater of Formosus" and had been elected pope by an "anti-Formosan faction." In fact, Sergius III, while a bishop, had actually taken part in the Cadaver Synod where he was one of the clergy coerced into serving as co-judges with Stephen VII. Sergius III, it will be recalled, was also the only pope to order the murder of another pope, and also the only pope to father an illegitimate son who became a pope. It is no wonder, therefore, that historians such as Farrow describe the pontificate of the murderer Sergius III as "dismal and disgraceful."
My question is, how does the church rationalize this treatment of a Pope, or anyone for that matter? What was hoped to be gained by digging up his grave and making a mockery of his remains in some strange star chamber sham of a trial? Is Stephen VII, a stark raving nutter if there ever was one, now regarded as an "ant-Pope," or is Formosus? How could anyone even tell at the time? How can you in your wildest dreams possibly blame devout Christians for wanting to separate themselves from such a madhouse?
Timothy and Titus and Barnabus could easily have acted as Paul’s secretaries, or scribes. We know from some letters that he used them. the important thing is the theology, it never varies from Paul’s teachings.
However, in those cases Paul was always identified as the author.
Ah, you would claim that, but as we know, Henry VIII took over the Church and its property in 1533-1534 and was then excommunicated. England ceased being a Catholic nation at this point, and Henry definitely was not Catholic. He assumed the title Henry the Eighth, by the Grace of God, King of England and France, Defender of the Faith, Lord of Ireland and of the Church of England in Earth Supreme Head in 1535. Tudor had begun the break in 1530, after years of being rebuffed for his petition of divorce and annulment. Tyndale wrote a scathing publication in 1530 against the king's petitioning. It was at this point that Henry started to go after Tyndale. But Tyndale was seized in 1535, years after Tudor's break with Rome and was executed by the Belgian secular authorities at the behest of Tudor.
Not Catholic; actually Tyndale was upholding Catholic doctrine against the king in this instance.
Now, my good sir, this is weaseling. Either Paul wrote them or he didn't. If he had dictated (a claim missing entirely), then that too should have been noted. There are many analyses out there that do a good job of pointing out the differences between those letters that we accept that Paul wrote, and these questionable one.
But again, what about 2 Peter? What about the Gospels?
ph
LOL. And what was the theology of the Church Fathers?
Henry VIII always considered himself a devout Catholic. Any number of Protestant “heretics” were martyred during his reign, particularly while Thomas More was Lord Chancellor. Henry VII’s Lord Chancellor More zealously burned Protestants at the stake. His pursuit of Tyndale began in 1525. The dissolution of the Catholic monasteries, involving the confiscation of their properties and wealth, did not begin until the year Tyndale was killed in 1536. The Six Articles of 1539 reaffirmed many of the doctrines of the Catholic church, including transubstantiation, clerical celibacy, and oral confession. These articles also led to the persecution and killing of Protestants, due to Henry’s perceived need to prove that he was not a heretic. He thoroughly detested Lutherans and he never regarded himself as “Protestant” in his entire life.
Duh, if he knows what his children need why does he wait until they ask for it?
I agree. If Paul had spent more time on Mary then it would have meant that God was having a good day handing down His word. The Gospels of course were very good days for God, but He was apparently having very bad days when handing us the OT. I guess God got better with practice on authoring His word. Nobody's perfect. :)
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.