Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
What drippingly virulent condescension.
. . . sadly . . . too Standard for those from the
Vatican headquartered Ishtar-Mary-Goddess cult.
Convenient, MD.
That strikes me as yet another of the RC edifice covering all sides of all issues in order to support the edifice regardless.
However, as you’ve likely observed,
many hundreds of lines of text have been spewed on FR by RC’s asserting the opposite.
There’s the one about the bread turning into literal human flesh and blood, for example, etc. etc. etc.
The insistence that there
IS A LOCALIZED PRESENCE OF CHRIST’S LITERAL BODY
IS BY FAR
THE ONE THAT CARRIES THE DAY
in all the rituals, in the minds’ images, in the emotions etc.
Else there’d be no need for a “Tabernacle,” and a lot of the other hoopla built up around the consecrated wafer etc.
I think the co-pilot analogy breaks down immediately.
There’s NO Biblical justification for putting the autentic Mary in the cockpit AT ALL.
AT BEST one might Biblically guesstimate that she occasionally would serve coffee or tea to the cockpit as chief stewardess.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
[BTW, paragraphs are our friends. LOL]
Wow ! I just saw the one cat on small device! Now I see the other!!! Lol!!! That is a funny photo!! Lol!!
ALL the other things you say about us, true or not, have nothing to do with that simple thing.
You were mistaken. Your quote was irrelevant. What is so hard about that?
Oh Brother...The place and the object must be equal...Who says??? A philosopher..
When Aquinas says, "The Philosopher" he means Aristotle. But he is not quoting Aristotle as an authority whose mere pronouncement makes a thing so. Aristotle reasons well about space and place.
If a thing is bigger than its place, then onlypartof it is contained in its place, and the rest not. So its place is not its place. Which is absurd.
If a thing is smaller than its place,then its place is where it touches the other thing in its place, which is absurd.
Therefore the place and the object must be equal.
Yea, us little o dummies don't know nuthin'...
I didn't say that. You made a charge. I hadthe nerve not only to defend against it but to do so reasonably, showing that we do not think Jesus is "here." as in a place so tht one might say, "lo, here."
Evidently I am wrong for being right. Which is absurd.
Abuse is not argument, and therefore not persuasive.
Is was that charge and assertion against which I was defending.
Your side ludicrously complains that an answer to one of your objections fails because it doesn't answer all your other objections.
I praise YHvH for leading me to the source.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Explain this to me MD:
"It is not inappropriate that the body of Christ at the same time be in heaven and upon all the altars on which the bread and the wine are consecrated. It is indeed inconsistent that the same body be at the same time in many places according to local presence: for it would be locally distant from itself and divided from itself. But any contradiction vanishes when the body is locally in one place only, and in another place according to the mode of substance; for then it is not distant or divided from itself. Now Christ's body is locally in heaven certainly, but it is not in the Eucharist locally, but according to the mode of substance. (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology {New York: Desclee Company, 1959}, vol. II,p 262. Catholic scholar Father A. Tanquerey provides this explanation of the Roman Catholic position.
Who says there's not simplicity in Christ?
I used it simply in its literal Latin interpretation which is "it speaks for itself". However, if you want a legal interpretation res ipsa Loquitor is a rule of evidence, not substantive law. For your contributory negligence position to be valid it must be demonstrated that the other party's posting was either within the rules or, at a minimum, extralegal, (that is not covered by the rules,) which clearly isn't the case. Non obstante veredicto.
Now call me suspicious, but that sounds an awful lot like Co-redeemer, meaning Co-operating in our redemption and by praying for our salvation, obtaining our salvation. Not a "with", but an "equal". That's my opinion, anyway.
1 Corinthians 2:11-16
11For who knows a person’s thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 13And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
14The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. 16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
Wait. You mean it’s not perfectly clear?
I mean ->I<- understand it PERFECKLY. [nods VERY sincerely.]
(In the middle of administative monkey bidnis. I hope to get to this later,but no promises.)
That is how it reads.
Now, whether it means what it says is simply a matter of the allegiance of the person to whom you’re talking.
No need for a ticket the plane ride is a free gift and the destination is amazing! :)
Your subjective article replete with agenda driven purposes has no credibility. That is why you were told to study objective history written by known historians who present unbiased historical analysis.
Your biased empty bombast against the substantiation as non-objective and biased (which many Catholics term anything that contradicts them) is what lacks credibility, but such is a psychologically useful tactic for damage control in the light of the clear evidence against you. It matters not if the page or site has things contrary to Rome, the facts are that substantial Catholic sources, both known committed defenders and more objective ones, as well as other research clearly refutes you.
Trent merely ratified what had been effectively promulgated in Hippo and Carthage. The fact that the Church used these canons for the next 1100 years provides indisputable evidence notwithstanding the flawed anonymous article you referenced on a biased site.
It is my site, and along with your anti-evangelical bias you are now attempting to move the goal posts, as the contention is whether the canon had been infallibly defined, thus ending debate, and thus Catholics could have certitude which the supreme magisterium provides. Whether Trent's canon is the same as that of Hippo and Carthage is debated regarding 2 Esdras, but in any case as these were not ecumenical councils they were not infallible*, and thus debate existed right into Trent, and thus some apologists point to Florence (also non-ecumenical) as when the canon was settled.
► The Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament, (1917), states, “The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council. (Emphasis mine throughout.)
► "For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian"The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. ” (Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm;
► “According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent...The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. II, Bible, III (Canon), p. 390; Canon, Biblical, p. 29; Bible, III (Canon), p. 390).
► The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. RG27: "The final definitive list of biblical books (including the seven additional Old Testament books) was only drawn up at the council of Trent in 1546. “Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (Joseph Lienhard, The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
► "...an official, definitive list of inspired writings did not exist in the Catholic Church until the Council of Trent (Yves Congar, French Dominican cardinal and theologian, in Tradition and Traditions" [New York: Macmillan, 1966], p. 38).
► As H. Jedin observes, it also put a full stop to the 1000-year-old development of the biblical canon (History of the Council of Trent [London, 1961] 91, quoted by Raymond Edward Brown, American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar, in The New Jerome biblical commentary, p. 1168)
► "in the fifth century a more or less final consensus [on the New Testament canon] was reached and shared by East and West. It is worth noting that no ecumenical council in the ancient church ever ruled for the church as a whole on the question of the contents of the canon." (Harry Gamble, in Lee McDonald and James Sanders, edd., The Canon Debate [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2002], p. 291)
* Prior lists by other councils were not ecumenical. The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that is was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa. “
...at the present day, and for many centuries in the past, only the decisions of ecumenical councils and the ex cathedra teaching of the pope have been treated as strictly definitive in the canonical sense...” (The Catholic encyclopedia, http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=6099)
Neither Catholics nor the Orthodox recognize Rome or Carthage or Hippo as Ecumenical in their list. http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_14388a.htm http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#List_of_the_Seven_Ecumenical_Councils.
The Council of Florence (1442) contains a complete list of the books received by the Church as inspired, but omits, perhaps advisedly, the terms canon and canonical. The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pass on their canonicity.” — http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
Carthage, yet also sanctioned were the canons of Athanasius and Amphilochius that had to do with the canon and both of these fathers rejected the major books of the Apocrypha. In addition, the Council sanctioned the Apostolical canons which, in canon eighty-five, gave a list of canonical books which included 3 Maccabees, a book never accepted as canonical in the West.101 Furthermore, the Apostolical canons were condemned and rejected as apocryphal in the decrees of Popes Gelasius and Hormisdas.102 Thus indicating that the approval given was not specific but general.
Therefore, as shown in previous debates, what can be said is that the Roman Catholic canon was largely settled early by the time of Carthage, but not without disagreement even by notable Catholics scholars, until Trent settled the issue in 1546 by issuing the first “infallible” and final definition of the Roman Catholic canon.
The Inclusion of the books in the Hebrew Bible was settled 1100 years before Luther needed a change to justify his fanciful theories. Most objective historians, even the anti-Catholic secular humanistic ones, agree to this fact.
No, the non-referenced anonymous “objective historians” are either ignorant of this or biased as it was not definitively settled with certainty for Roman Catholics, which would have disallowed dissent, and which existed among a minority, as there was dispute right in the council of Trent about the canon.
Among them was Augustinian friar, Italian theologian and cardinal and papal legate Girolamo Seripando. The Roman Catholic historian (over seven-hundred titles, and an expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin (1900-1980) explained “he was aligned with the leaders of a minority that was outstanding for its theological scholarship” at the Council of Trent.” Jedin writes that his position was “Tobias, Judith, the Book of Wisdom, the books of Esdras, Ecclesiasticus, the books of the Maccabees, and Baruch are only "canonici et ecclesiastici" and make up the canon morum in contrast to the canon fidei. These, Seripando says in the words of St. Jerome, are suited for the edification of the people, but they are not authentic, that is, not sufficient to prove a dogma. Seripando emphasized that in spite of the Florentine canon the question of a twofold canon was still open and was treated as such by learned men in the Church. Without doubt he was thinking of Cardinal Cajetan, who in his commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews accepted St. Jerome's view which had had supporters throughout the Middle Ages.” (Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate At The Council Of Trent (St Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1947), pp. 270-271;.https://aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?blogid=1&query=cajetan
Cardinal Cajetan himself was actually an adversary of Luther, and who was sent by the Pope in 1545 to Trent as a papal theologian, had reservations about the apocrypha as well as certain N.T. books based upon questionable apostolic authorship.
▀ "On the eve of the Reformation, it was not only Luther who had problems with the extent of the New Testament canon. Doubts were being expressed even by some of the loyal sons of the Church. Luther's opponent at Augsburg, Cardinal Cajetan, following Jerome, expressed doubts concerning the canonicity of Hebrews, James, 2 and 3 John, and Jude....
Erasmus likewise expressed doubts concerning Revelation as well as the apostolicity of James, Hebrews and 2 Peter. It was only as the Protestant Reformation progressed, and Luther's willingness to excise books from the canon threatened Rome that, at Trent, the Roman Catholic Church hardened its consensus stand on the extent of the New Testament canon into a conciliar pronouncement.64 http://bible.org/article/evangelicals-and-canon-new-testament#P136_48836
▀ Cajetan was also highly regarded by many, even if opposed by others. "It has been significantly said of Cajetan that his positive teaching was regarded as a guide for others and his silence as an implicit censure. His rectitude, candour, and moderation were praised even by his enemies. Always obedient, and submitting his works to ecclesiastical authority, he presented a striking contrast to the leaders of heresy and revolt, whom he strove to save from their folly." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03145c.htm
Some proposed to follow the judgment of Cardinal Caietan and distinguish two classes of books, as, it was argued, had been the intention of Augustine. Others wished to draw the line of distinction yet more exactly, and form three classes, (1) the Acknowledged Books, (2) the Disputed Books of the New Testament, as having been afterwards generally received, (3) the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. (B.F. Westcott, The Bible In The Church, p. 256).
However, opposing views were overcome, with the first infallible (for RCs) canon being ratified by Trent on April 8, 1546, apparently after a controversial informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstaining. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2007/12/underwhelming-majority-at-trent.html
▀ Back to Martin Luther, as WP states, he
was troubled by four books: Jude, James, Hebrews, and Revelation; and though he placed them in a secondary position relative to the rest, he did not exclude them. Martin Luther proposed removing the Antilegomena, the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon,[92][93] echoing the consensus of several Catholics, also labeled Christian Humanists — such as Cardinal Ximenez, Cardinal Cajetan, and Erasmus — and partially because they were perceived to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide, but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day. "Gedruckte Ausgaben der Lutherbibel von 1545". note order: …Hebräer, Jakobus, Judas, Offenbarung] [http://www.bible-researcher.com/links10.html]
Luther "had a low view of Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation, and so when he published his New Testament in 1522 he placed these books apart at the end...Luther's criticism of these books will perhaps be found disgraceful and even shocking to modern Christians, but it should be pointed out that his attitude was not so shocking in the context of the late Middle Ages. Erasmus had also called into question these four books in the Annotationes to his 1516 Greek New Testament, and their canonicity was doubted by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (Luther's opponent at Augsburg. See Reu, Luther's German Bible, pp. 175-176). http://www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
For balance concerning the typical charges against Luther and the canon, you might go here for the other side.
Thus, while the Catholic could have reasonable assurance of what the Biblical canon consisted of prior to Trent, he could not be so sure as to precludes dissent, and which necessitated the dogmatic a solemn definition of Trent.
In addition, the argument that the logic behind the “stewardship of Scripture=assured infallibility polemic” would require submission to the Jews, begins with the first century, which would lead to it today, and the Orthodox would reject the idea that nominal Judaism represents it, just as Traditional Catholics reject their nominal Catholic counterparts, which are substantially like their liberal Jewish counterparts.
Again, we take Col 1:24 to imply that there IS a way that we can co-operate or contribute to Christ's redemptive work. I think THAT's the humongo theological hurdle/disagreement. For MOI, once we can accept what I take Col 1:24 to suggest, Mary's contribution seems evident.
Is that clearer? I'm not asking if you agree (ho ho ho), I'm asking if you 'get' the claim and the manner of its making.
You know I am ROFL at your response! You are TOO FUNNY! I love a good sense of humor!
That sure blows the theory of organizational education superiority out of the water doesn’t it.
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.