Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
There's a lot of history about Catholics buying indulgances to get their loved ones out of purgatory...Some have even said it still happens today with annulments...
Sheed's book is a joy. But then, any man who would go to Hyde Park, stand on a soap box and go toe to toe with the heathens for hours really knew his apologetics.
His book is like a book by Mozart. Move one word, and it diminishes the whole; delete one paragraph and it would fall. It was inspired by his love of the Truth of God in my humble estimation.
No, I don't get any royalties. I just admire him enough to borrow his name.
[Acts 15]You are correct. Peter did speak....so did Barnabas and Paul (verse 12)....but James was the one who was in charge (verse 19), and he was the flesh and blood son of Mary and Joseph....and the flesh and blood half brother of Our Lord.
We have Biblical proof that James was the leader of the Jerusalem Church as well as historical proof. Josephus mentions him by name and calls him the brother of Jesus [Antiquities XX, Chapter IX, Paragraph I.
You are a poet, MD. That was beautiful.
Throw some mud at the wall and see if it sticks? Your "alleged" observation has what relevance to the subject matter of the vicious screed which started this entire "undead thread?"
kagw de soi legw oti su ei petroV, kai epi tauth th petra oikodomhsw mou thn ekklhsian, kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin authV.
Literally translated: "And I therefore/also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my ecclesia/church, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against/overcome it." In other words, "on this rock (not some other rock)." His use of the adjective th parallels the 1st and 2nd use of "rock". And "rock" has a masculine ending because you couldn't call Peter "Rockette" - you could call him "Rocky", I guess. One of the modern/teen language Bibles actually perpetrates that.
Thank you for your reply - beautifully written. I appreciate what you are saying in:
"Our Lord is rock and key-bearer and shepherd: He will
continue all that each title implies through Peter.
Church or Peter, it is all the same. Neither matters
save as an instrument through which Christ has chosen to
work. "
My argument is on the assumption that:
"He built His Church upon the rock known as Peter....our
first Pope."
The Rock the church is built on is Christ Himself. I see no way to think otherwise. However, He does work through churches and Christians - Catholic and Protestant and Non-denominational. There are wonderful attributes to all but I believe that problems can and have arisen when traditions of men supercede the Word of God.
Thank you so much for your thoughts on this subject.
Just fyi, an annulment petition is decided on the basis of a one-time flat fee which varies slightly from diocese to diocese but is not unreasonable (in ours it is $500 for a formal petition, but for matters such as lack of baptism or prior marriage undissolved it's $25 or $50.) Seems very reasonable and not "buying" anything improper, given the amount of work and research that goes into the process.
Peter didn't die for you, Jesus did. He did what a church, Peter, you or I could never do. He died in our place. Thats what saves you so I don't understand how anyone can't believe it. Salvation is a gift to be received, not a reward to be earned.
People who see demons and pagans everywhere are prisoners of their own fear. But Christ came to cast out fear.
"Fear not, he is with you; o be not dismayed
For he is thy God and will still give thee aid.
He'll strengthen you, help you, and cause you to stand
Upheld by his righteous, omnipotent hand."
I think some of these comments are addressed to me. First, please realize that I am NOT the author of this text. Frank Sheed is a famous Catholic apologist and I am much in his debt for the clarity and beauty of his writings on Theology. I have taken the liberty to copy some of the text of "Theology and Sanity" and presented it above. Sheed's work is an excellent read, especially for a Christian wondering just what the Catholic Church teaches with a great deal of biblical background and the weight of tradition to buttress his views. He is an eminent spokesman.
Second, I do not fully agree with your second statement regarding the traditions of men. For this I refer you to Dave Armstrong (who I believe frequents this forum). He has a number of great books on the Faith and is a Catholic convert with an extensive bible background. His book, The Catholic Verses, is one I am finishing up now. Again, if you find you have an interest, he makes a compelling case based totally on Scripture and the inconsistencies found when Authority was abandoned by the Reformation, to buttress his views and those of the Church.
I thank you for your kind comments. It is always great to have a civil and cordial dialog between fellow Christians.
May God be with you this fine day!
Frank
It would be nice if I could keep my "thees" and "yous" straight. . . . been singing it with the "yous" too long.
Since I am not a member of any of those organizations, do not claim to be a Protestant and in no way support the doctrines of Martin Luther, you have just shown the world your lack of knowledge of the New Testament Church.
The Church at Pentecost recognized the Feast Days and Sabbaths outlined in the book of Leviticus (Chapter 23). They did not celebrate the pagan Easter morning affair that the "Universal" church began. They continued to celebrate the Passover...and continue to do so, today.
Are these Sabbaths and Feast Days celebrated by the Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses or the Protestants? Not the last time I looked. We know they are not celebrated by the "Universal" Church because that outfit was the first to go into apostasy....1700 years ago.
If you want to know more about my faith....start at Genesis and work your way forward. Examine the history of your organization and you'll soon see where they left the faith.
The comments were addressed to you. Even though you didn't write them - thank you for sending them my way.
May God be with us all this fine day........Ping-Pong
"You say that Mary did not continue a virgin: I claim still more, that Joseph himself on account of Mary was a virgin, so that from a virgin wedlock a virgin son was born. For if as a holy man he does not come under the imputation of fornication, and it is nowhere written that he had another wife, but was the guardian of Mary whom he was supposed to have to wife rather than her husband, the conclusion is that he who was thought worthy to be called father of the Lord, remained a virgin."
Jerome - Against Helvidius
Where did the "cousin" theory develop?
In my, not so humble, opinion it makes no difference whatsoever whether Mary remained a virgin or not. In no way could it detract from her blessedness or the Divinity of Jesus.
We all worship God here, so I don't think that's up for debate.
We Catholics do not worship Mary.
Christ left Peter (and his successors as his human shepherd.
If you ever decide to start a thread on that, please ping me to it. I was under the impression that all do believe that.
And a sincere thank you to AmericanMother for my first tag line.
Well, since you are throwing in everything but the kitchen sink... My diocese says it costs $750 to process an annulment. The amount charged is $175, with the rest subsidized by the diocese.
John 21:
[15] When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
[16] A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
[17] He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Do you suppose Jesus put Simon, son of John through the wringer three times because he had denied Him three times?
So? Even if, for the sake of argument, we stipulate that the RC church says you can buy your way through Purgatory, it makes no difference..Your article says buying people out of hellfire. There is a critical difference, absolutely critical, between Purgatory, which is like a training ground for heaven, and hell. If you or the writer knew what we teach about Purgatory you'd know that it differs from hell the way a hospital differs from a torture chamber. They both may involve pain but the pain in hospitals is the trace of disease and the way to cure and health, while the pain in a torture chamber is just a prelude to despair and death.
The article is wrong and your comment is not pertinent to the mistake in the article. You are changing the subject. Again.
...Some have even said it still happens today with annulments...
Some say those who claim to be filled with the Holy Spirit are psychopaths. Are we talking about what "some" say? You may be, but I'm concerned what you said when you posted the article which begins with an untruth. I'm talking about how when I ask you to take responsibility for an untruth you posted about what we teach about hellfire you change the subject to things like purgatory and matrimony. You are changing the subject again!
Listen: YOU brought this up. We wouldn't be talking about this if you hadn't posted the article. The article was so WAY off base that even though it was so obviously not fit for a closed caucus thread, nearly all we could do was make jokes about it. It is an important thing to me that somebody's eagerness to say nasty things about the Catholic Church would lead them to put up such a string of hateful lies and seek to have a conversation which excluded those being lied about. This is not trivial -- and you did 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.