Posted on 09/01/2015 3:53:50 AM PDT by NYer
True.
Veering has been deemed wrong.
I forgive you; for entering my early morning ELSIEthon.
To hear him tell it, it's his wife who may well be the desperate one. ;^')
But no matter what, the critters will most always look up to, and respect a guy. A little. Cats and goats though, they could be running an elaborate con.
It can hard to pin them on it.
Even when catching them in the act, they suddenly smile, "who? me?" as I'm sure you've noticed, and further suspected.
Are we sure you can do that?
It may not be valid.
Or even if it is valid, it may be 'illicit', not 'Church' approved.
But wait! It is approved by that 'Church' over there, and everything all around down to the 17th (and one-half) Baptist Church of Okmulgee, so it must be OK.
Why some people are still mad at me now, I dunno.
Just your opinion, that is all.
In the future say IMO.
And there I was, driving along one of the back roads, windows down, radio on, veering wheel in my hands, lazily rolling along, first towards one bar ditch, then visiting towards the other...
And the guy said that was against the law.
How was I supposed to know?
Read your quotes from Augustine again.
-No; you post them and highlight what you’ve discovered.
If you don’t want to read them again, fine. I provided the following example that was reiterated in your other quotes:
(in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church)
My point is that, regardless of whether Augustine considered Peter to be Rock or Church, he did believe that the Catholic Church began with the seat of the Apostle Peter, and the succession of priests beginning with Peter is what kept him in the bosom of the Catholic Church.
My job is done here.
Peace,
Rich
What you 'provided' was YOUR interpretation of what you've think Augustine's intentions were.
You are fast approaching V1 speed.
True dat!
You guys only have my brilliance for a few hours a day.
Cats?
They just ignore you.
But GOATS?
They openly defy you and dare you to do something about it!
I got the two big boys down yesterday and trimmed their toenails (hooves)
Oh?
Just which of these two statement are 'opinion'? (In your opinion...)
GOD's 'children' are a bit narrowly defined by Rome; so until IT changes it's ways; I doubt it.
Although Francis is sure trying; much to the displeasure of 'some' Catholics.
The things some folks believe never surprise me.
Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.. Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
For all bear the surname rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II): Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
According to some RCs on FR, former RCs as myself are still Catholic, as we cannot get rid of the "indelible mark" left on our souls thru sacramental RC sprinkling. And (as needed for promotion) or they cite the billions whom Rome counts as members, which include Teddy K Catholics. Thus RCsm is very big.
However, according to these or others, then Teddy K Catholics are Catholic in name only, being self-excommuinicated. Even if Rome trears them as members in life and in death.
Others go even further, and excommuinicate even V2 era popes from being popes, and V2 RCs as being Catholic, while other RCs say such RCs are essentially Prots.
If RCs follow their current pastors, and their interpretation of Rome, then the large number is the claim. But if they judge according to historical teaching, then a much lower number is valid, but trad. RCs may use both as needed.
“Then what does Vlad call them?”
Generally I call Anglicans Anglicans.
“Catholics?”
Nope.
“Like yourself and the Marx -Kasper couple?”
Desperation on your part again?
“So you are saying the Eastern Orthodox are not schismatic; but the SSPX essentially are?”
What does the Church say ebb tide? Do you even know?
“For the fourth time, you don’t know what you’re talking about.”
ebb, you have demonstrated numerous times that you do not know what you’re talking about. You’re doing it again.
What you ‘provided’ was YOUR interpretation of what you’ve think Augustine’s intentions were.
Do you disagree with what I stated his intentions were?
“Another idiotic statement. Every Catholic is always in a need to confess his sins.”
In need of confession, yes, but not necessarily in stark want of a confessor if they are living in normal circumstances. Someone in a situation - such as being close to death - in a place where there is no Catholic priest would certainly be a person in need.
“Why do you ignore the qualifications of “physically or morally impossible”?”
I didn’t ignore it. I’m the one who posted it.
“Under what absurd conditions do you think a Catholic cannot morally confess his sins to a Catholic priest, Sherlock?”
That’s simple:
1) “physically”
- no priest available
- approaching death
- person who wishes to confess is denied chance to by someone else (e.g. EO husband who refuses to allow Catholic wife to attend Catholic services with threats of violence)
2) “morally”
- priest is a relative (confessing might cause greater scandal within family)
- priest is known to commit sigilism: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/filipino_priest_excommunicated_for_violating_the_secrecy_of_confession/
- priest has abused the person who wants to confess
- person who wishes to confess is denied chance to by someone else (e.g. EO husband who refuses to allow Catholic wife to attend Catholic services with threats of violence)
“Could it be that his confessor is Marx or Kasper?”
So desperate.
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.