| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
We are called to love justice, and to pray for mercy.
The Campbellites are particularly strong in this area. But they all have their preferences. Some Campbellites only accept Luke and Acts. The Reformed concentrate on Paul. Many Pentecostals and such look to Revelation (Herbert W. Armstrong comes to mind). It is the Catholics and the Catholic Light that elevate the Gospels above the rest of the Bible.
We Catholics regard Paul's epistles as they were intended to be read - as a bishop writing to his flock, in many cases, a bunch of cats that he was attempted to herd.
And good afternoon to you!!!! How's business?
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Oh, and BTW, Rome was filled with uncircumcised folks...Peter had no business being in Rome...And he wasn't...He was off somewhere else preaching to the 'circumcision' as he was instructed by God...
This is the problem. There is only one Gospel of Jesus Christ. Peter began, as Christ did, with the Jews, and then made the transition to Rome. You must look at the timeline of when Paul wrote this. Peter most certainly made it to Rome, just as Thomas made it to India.
Only to those interested in honest debate.
Nope. I just agree that it appears that for a brief time Peter was the leader of the very early church and then nothing more.
There is nothing in either the book of the Acts of the Apostles or I and II Peter that indicates he kept and special position or was elevated to any special position greater than the rest or that he passed on any mantle of any kind.
Scripture is deafeningly silent about the supposed papal succession that allegedly occurred for the next 300 or so years. Word of mouth, after the fact tradition doesn’t rate.
1 Corinthians 9:5 “Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas?”
I don't know what you mean 'officially'. About 107 AD, Ignatius of Antioch was arrested and martyred. In a farewell letter, he wrote "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). The usage here indicates that it was in common usage, and had come into usage at some point previous to 107 AD. Since letters were infrequent, journeys long, and communication slow, this may have been in common usage for decades. The Catholic Church cannot take responsibility for evangelizing the world.
The world was largely evangelized or in the process by the time the Reformation happened.
Paul does indicate that he passed his position on to Timothy. The Apostles chose successors. Every entity has a succession program. Jesus painstakingly taught His Church for three years. Was He going to let it drop after that? No. He promised that the Holy Spirit would be with them forever. The gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Church was made to continue. It continues. Quite satisfactorily. And the splinter churches continue their either quiet or noisy process of demise.
Scripture is deafeningly silent about the supposed papal succession that allegedly occurred for the next 300 or so years. Word of mouth, after the fact tradition doesn’t rate.
That's why the written records of the Church serve so well.
Thanks for your replies on this thread.
Good to see you posting more again.
Thanks for your contributions to this thread.
Remember, that Paul advocates celibacy; he is insisting on the right for his followers to take along a Christian wife; he also touches on the right to eat and drink; the right not to have to work; the right not to have to be his own soldier at his own expense; the right not to have to plant a vineyard without sampling some of its produce, etc., when he is preaching the Gospel to the people.
He is railing about many things, including having had to work in order to eat, when others did not (hinted at in verse 4, 7 and 11).
I will defend the Faith of Jesus Christ given by Him to the Apostles and them to us as best I can. But appreciation is so very much, well, appreciated.
Good evening. Things are going well.
:>)
From the Catholic Encyclpoedia:
“The combination “the Catholic Church” (he katholike ekklesia) is found for the first time in the letter of St. Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, written about the year 110. The words run: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be, even as where Jesus may be, there is the universal [katholike] Church.” However, in view of the context, some difference of opinion prevails as to the precise connotation of the italicized word, and Kattenbusch, the Protestant professor of theology at Giessen, is prepared to interpret this earliest appearance of the phrase in the sense of mia mone, the “one and only” Church [Das apostolische Symbolum (1900), II, 922].”
katholike as in universal.
That would distract us from our responsibilities from the Church s/
And Professor Kattenbusch would be working backwards from a set point of view and searching for justification for that viewpoint. I must admit that we do the same thing, looking at the NT through the Gospel prism, and the whole of OT through the NT prism. We can find lots of things in the OT when we know the NT that would not be apparent or discernible or even there, possibly. :)
Haven't seen you much involved lately. Been well?
I would say Paul was more of a leader of the early church than Peter
Ping to post 992. Already answered.
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.