I assume you're referring to this woman ... ?
Really, wonk ... is it necessary to follow all my readings posts with this ... even when they don't even mention Mary? What's your point?
Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Why do you think that one has to be ordained in the line of apostolic succession for the consecration of the bread and wine to "take"?
Here's what angelo posted. I apologize if this was in the context of some earlier post that I didnt' see mentioning something specifically in scripture.
"And" must fall under "miscellaneous". I wonder why someone would translate "or" as "and"? It couldn't have been just for this issue (could it?). What reason would there be to presume that it should be rendered that way.
I think that it's probably a case of a faulty manuscript (Greek) being used and the error then propagating. Every modern translation uses "or," and they are produced using the best available manuscripts.
SD
I assume you're referring to this woman ... ?
Really, wonk ... is it necessary to follow all my readings posts with this ... even when they don't even mention Mary? What's your point?
Maybe my memory is faulty. I could have sworn he said "Biblicaly." Perhaps in an earlier question, and I carried it on.
SD
Offended? Not really ... just curious why you've been doing this lately, that's all.
Really? I would have expected you to understand my point, considering that the Catholic church does not consider Anglican orders to be valid.
And what might that be?
Be honest. You really don't give a crap about any text other than John 6 as long as you can make it jive with Big C catholecism.
For example, the last few days the NC's here assured me that "the flesh profits nothing" doesn't refer to Jesus' flesh. Now Havoc is here saying that it does. Which of you is right? Why do two "spirit filled" Christians being "led to all truth" come up within different answers?
Again dishonesty. A couple of days ago I explained to you that when Jesus compared spirit and flesh he said that the flesh "profiteth nothing". You keep wanting to change it to "His" flesh. Again if you can't handle the Word of God with respect I'd rather not be bothered with your foolishness.
I expect they will see the light on that issue. It's quite an interesting story. I've been reading a book by an Anglican-turned-Roman priest about the behind the scenes events on this issue.
I'm sorry to be so dense, I guess I'm not seeing your point. You usually state your case in an upfront manner and I was taken aback by your response to my post.
WHAT AMERICAN CATHOLICS THINK: We've long known that American Catholics were more liberal than most other Americans, but the discrepancy is really quite striking. Newsweek's poll this week finds the following: 59 percent think screening out gays from the priesthood would not make much difference in curtailing abuse; 44 percent back legal same-sex marriage, compared to only about a third of the general population; 51 percent would have no problem with an openly gay priest; 73 percent favor married clergy; 65 percent favor women priests. Many more Catholics would be happy with a gay priest in a committed relationship than non-Catholics. This is the gulf the current hierarchy is struggling to bridge. No, the church is not a democracy, and shouldn't be. But when it reaches this level of cognitive dissonance between official doctrine and actual belief, you've got a real problem.
Of course, the "real problem" is that a majority of American Catholics are willingly apostitizing from the Roman Catholic Church. And numbers don't mean they're right, obviously. At one point the majority of Christians would have "polled" in favor of Arianism. But it's certainly disturbing nonetheless. I'll continue to pray for your fellow churchmembers.
I am so sorry. You should move:)
I was on the horse yesterday 5 hours. I am a bit tired today, it's hell getting old:). The humidity was high yesterday, but it stayed in the 70's around here. I love this time of year. Hope it gets there soon.
Becky
I don't know how/if Mack aswered this, but personally, I will worry less about you now:) I think you got it. JMO FWIW.
Becky
I did not explicitly say that, but that was what I was asking.
I'll take that as a compliment from someone who doesn't really give a twitt about scripture. Thank you so much.
Not at all. We are all searching for meaning. Pointing out the obvious, that the Bible leads different people to different interpretations, causes you consternation, apparently.
For example, the last few days the NC's here assured me that "the flesh profits nothing" doesn't refer to Jesus' flesh. Now Havoc is here saying that it does. Which of you is right? Why do two "spirit filled" Christians being "led to all truth" come up within different answers?
Again dishonesty. A couple of days ago I explained to you that when Jesus compared spirit and flesh he said that the flesh "profiteth nothing". You keep wanting to change it to "His" flesh. Again if you can't handle the Word of God with respect I'd rather not be bothered with your foolishness.
Hello? What did I just say? I listened to you and others here. Now Havoc is saying something different. Tell him to handle the Word of God with respect, eh?
Now is it you or Havoc that is truly spirit filled and led to all truth?
SD
SD
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.