Posted on 08/11/2008 4:58:31 PM PDT by annalex
You wrote:
“If this article is an example of “the truth of Catholicism”, it falls short of the Bible.”
Not according to St. Peter:
Acts.4
[1] And as they spake unto the people, the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them,
[2] Being grieved that they taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from the dead.
[3] And they laid hands on them, and put them in hold unto the next day: for it was now eventide.
[4] Howbeit many of them which heard the word believed; and the number of the men was about five thousand.
[5] And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes,
[6] And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
[7] And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this?
[8] Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,
[9] If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole;
[10] Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
[11] This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
[12] Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
[13] Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.
[14] And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it.
[15] But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves,
[16] Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.
[17] But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name.
[18] And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.
[19] But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye.
[20] For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard.
[21] So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
[22] For the man was above forty years old, on whom this miracle of healing was shewed.
[23] And being let go, they went to their own company, and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them.
[24] And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
[25] Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?
[26] The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
[27] For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
[28] For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
[29] And now, Lord, behold their threatenings: and grant unto thy servants, that with all boldness they may speak thy word,
[30] By stretching forth thine hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus.
[31] And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.
[32] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.
[33] And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.
[34] Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.
[36] And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
[37] Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Peter took a beating or two for his preaching in the early days. Claveau seems to be taking quite a cyber beating.
You wrote:
“... then perhaps you can explain Chapter 16 of Romans...?”
What is there to explain? Paul had never been to Rome and did not know the Roman Church. He did know some members whom he sent on ahead.
Again, what is there to explain?
Peter took a beating. Agreed. That does little to improve the
weakness of Claveau’s article.
Claveau deserves the beating he received!
v,
1. He didn’t send them all ahead
2. He knew at least 28 by name
3. Those are just the ones he mentioned
4. You specifically said he didn’t know the Romans
He did.
That’s all.
You wrote:
“Peter took a beating. Agreed. That does little to improve the weakness of Claveau’s article.”
There is no weakness in Claveau’s article. It is simply a brief letter when one considers all the details covered.
“Claveau deserves the beating he received!”
The viciousness of people here is astounding. Clearly this bizarre reaction to his simple letter is purely emotional. It certainly isn’t based on rational thought or any great knowledge of Christianity or evangelization.
“There is no weakness in Claveau’s article.”
Thanks. It was a tough day. You brightened it up with that
comment.
“Clearly this bizarre reaction to his simple letter is purely emotional.”
Love it! Thanks!
Thanks for admitting your “tough day”. See, it is just an emotional response on your part.
Thanks for the assist.
People and their “open” letters are such posers. Stephen has all he needs through Jesus Christ.
I have and you disagree. I don't know how you convinced me otherwise because I didn't see it.
No. I said medium. That means type of communication here, not type of porn.
The medium, platform, methodology, let's not quibble over the point of the assertion. You would object to his using the platform/medium/methodolgy of communication through Penthouse. I'm assuming he could skip all the dirty articles and pictures and get right to the letter. I simply stated that medium or the how and the manner of communication does make a difference. You said it doesn't as long as the writer is sincere. I gave you the reductio ad absurdum of that argument. You missed the point or maybe you were not prepared to accept the inevitable result of that argument.
Evangelization is not just preaching to the lost. It can and is preaching to those who identify themselves as Christians but who lack the fullness of the faith.
Actually, without getting in Biblical hermeneutics, or parsing Greek, or an explicitly Protestant/Catholic source let's take the good old Wikipedia definition:
Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. I thought the author admits he was Christian?
Because it may be impossible.
Where. Where do you get "it may be impossible." Either it is or it is not.
Maybe yes, maybe no. You don’t know and neither do I.
And you don't care and I do
No, it is done to evangelize - just as it is obvious.
No it isn't "obvious".
You don’t know. And it is not essential. Thankfully Justin Martyr did not follow your tact.
It's not essential to you and you don't care you already stated that.
That would be absurd - much like your hand-wringing angst over this simple letter.
Not hand wringing over anything. I question the motive and you don't. If I'm hand wringing why spend this time responding? Likely because you believe you need to provide an apologetic for it.
No, there is nothing deficient about my understanding of St. Paul’s letter.
1) There was no such thing as the Roman press, and if there was, Paul - with his great zeal for souls - would have used it.
Indeed there wasn't. My comment was made to suggest that public responses akin to the internet were possible. In fact like Luther he could have had his Christian brothers nail it on a piece of wood in town (or a door to stay with the historical analogy) so that the Roman Christians could find out that he was writing to them. Instead it's hand delivered.
2) It was not a personal letter because it was not written to one person but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”. He wrote the letter to the whole CHURCH of Rome.
It was a personal letter to the Church. What? Do you want to call it an impersonal letter to the church?
3) He wrote the letter in secret. It was not a personal letter. It was a secret letter. It was written in secret to protect the faithful. And it still wasn’t a personal letter of the sort you imagine.
Now you're contradicting yourself. Either it was ok to make it public or not. You just stated above that Paul would have used the Roman press openly if it was available.
How would you know? Also, there doesn’t have to be a physical reason impeding a meeting. That’s just your personal oddity on this. The open letter is about evangelization. Souls will be converted no matter what. The author probably composed the letter because bringing fallen away Catholics back to the Church has been a special concern of his:
So he and you are reckless as to the distribution and publishing of this letter. You could care less whether Baldwin prefers to have personal communication rather than be called out? I see. Thanks for the subtle methodology. And by the way, his use of quotation marks over born again" is rather crude and cynical shot at that phrase in the context of Baldwin. Baldwin states he is a born again Christian and the author, instead of accepting the genuiness of that phrase to Baldwin prefers to treat it in a patronizing way. Nice.
Thanks for this great post.
I guess that’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t think 7 years is “new”. 2 years would be “new”.
You quote a huge section of Acts for no purpose other than to take something out of context? I thought Claveau was speaking to a fellow Christian? Peter is speaking to unbelievers. How does that make (1) the quotation of the passages relevant; (2) Claveau a cyber martyr?
I wouldn’t go back to the Catholic Church on a bet! I stopped being a Catholic when I realized the travesty that the Catholic church had become! That was 38 yrs ago. I assume you’re saying there are no ex-catholics just as the Muslims say to their forced converts that they’ll always be Muslims? Fortunatly,I found my Saviour, Jesus Christ, and began a relationship with Him, rather than cling to a faction(or order) of priest. When I was young,I was forbidden to read the Scriptures on my own. You quasi-spirituals are so full of the “institution” of religion that you’re missing the Man who died for your sins! Salvation is not belonging to a Club by birth or Baptism...it’s giving upi your life to live as Christ lived. He is the object of our Affection and the Ruler of our lives! If you miss this..your ‘good works’ and vain machinations will be for naught!
&&You quasi-spirituals are so full of the “institution” of religion that you’re missing the Man who died for your sins!**
I beg to paprdon with you, but the Mass is full of Scripture. Have you ever looked at a Sacramentary — the book that the priest uses during Mass. Chock full of Scripture. We are not missing Jesus Christ at all.
**Salvation is not belonging to a Club by birth or Baptism...it’s giving upi your life to live as Christ lived.**
And many Catholics choose to live as Christ lived and many others choose to die as Christ died. I would hope you notice all the Optional Memorials and Memorials and Feasts of Saints.
Why do you have such a hard heart against your Catholic Church? Something had to happen somewhere.
(And regardless of what that is, we would welcome you back with Open Arms.)
Sounds like you might have even missed the presence of Christ in ALL the Sacraments. You might consider re-categizing yourself.
The hyperbole in this comment is astonishing. After admitting that the letter is written to a fellow Christian you suggest that the methodology is the same as Justin Martyr's. Again, the author is not preaching to a non-Christian or to a tribal cabal in the darkest jungle of South America. This has nothing to do with Justin Martyr, pagans, etc.
HARD HEART?...Possibly because of the billions that have been led astray by the Institution of the Church...doomed to a life of unfulfilled longing for the hole in their hearts to be filled with something other than indulgences for their sins. Despite its’ ecumenical posturings, the church still maintains it is the only way to eternity in Heaven! It aint happening like that!
You wrote:
“The medium, platform, methodology, let’s not quibble over the point of the assertion. You would object to his using the platform/medium/methodolgy of communication through Penthouse. I’m assuming he could skip all the dirty articles and pictures and get right to the letter. I simply stated that medium or the how and the manner of communication does make a difference. You said it doesn’t as long as the writer is sincere. I gave you the reductio ad absurdum of that argument. You missed the point or maybe you were not prepared to accept the inevitable result of that argument.”
My argument was sound and your attempt at reductio ad absurdum was just absurd rather than meaningful. I said medium - as in open letter - and not as in published in a smut magazine. That is not reductio ad absurdum. It is merely absurd.
“Actually, without getting in Biblical hermeneutics, or parsing Greek, or an explicitly Protestant/Catholic source let’s take the good old Wikipedia definition:”
Wikipedia? Oh, here we go.
“Evangelism is the Christian practice of preaching the Gospel of Jesus to non-Christians. I thought the author admits he was Christian?”
Sorry, but that is not all evangelism is. 1) The Bible was written when there were really only Catholics and non-Christians. Today, the situation is different. Today, not only do non-Catholic Christians need to be evangelized but even lapsed but baptized Catholics. http://www.ewtn.com/new_evangelization/
“Where. Where do you get “it may be impossible.” Either it is or it is not.”
Again, unless you know all the circumstances, “may” is the proper word. Do you know all the circumstances? No, you don’t.
“And you don’t care and I do”
I don’t care because it is essentially irrelevant.
“No it isn’t “obvious”.”
Yes, it is. The author clearly states that’s what he’s doing.
“It’s not essential to you and you don’t care you already stated that.”
It is not essential, period. The letter has been released whether you like it or not, thus, it is not essential, period.
“Not hand wringing over anything.”
Yeah, actually that’s exactly what you’re doing. These repeated angst filled posts are hilarious examples of someone getting upset over something that not only has NOTHING to do with him, but something that won’t be a big deal in the first place.
“I question the motive and you don’t.”
The motive is listed in the letter. There’s no reason to doubt it.
“If I’m hand wringing why spend this time responding?”
I always oppose absurdity wherever I find it. And the belligerence, anger and sheer paranoia expressed in responses to this simple letter are truly absurd.
“Likely because you believe you need to provide an apologetic for it.”
True, but many good things such as Christianity are regularly defended here. The real reason why I responded is simply this: those attacking the letter are over-reacting and wrong.
“Indeed there wasn’t. My comment was made to suggest that public responses akin to the internet were possible. In fact like Luther he could have had his Christian brothers nail it on a piece of wood in town (or a door to stay with the historical analogy) so that the Roman Christians could find out that he was writing to them. Instead it’s hand delivered.”
All mail was hand delivered - especially if you were trying to remain secret. Also, be careful of the Wittenberg door analogy. There is ample reason to believe that is a myth.
“It was a personal letter to the Church. What? Do you want to call it an impersonal letter to the church?”
It was not written from one person to another - but to “all who are beloved of God in Rome”.
“Now you’re contradicting yourself. Either it was ok to make it public or not. You just stated above that Paul would have used the Roman press openly if it was available.”
No. Paul would have used the Roman press to EVANGELIZE if such an open press existed. The Letter to the Romans was a secret one to protect himself and them from the Roman authorities. If, however, Paul could have used the Roman press - if such a thing existed - then he would have used it. I made no contradiction at all.
“So he and you are reckless as to the distribution and publishing of this letter.”
There is nothing reckless about the letter or its distribution. It’s an open letter. Look at the word you’re using here “reckless”. And you say you’re not wringing your hands in angst? Reckless?
“You could care less whether Baldwin prefers to have personal communication rather than be called out?”
He’s a public figure who openly talks about his faith on TV. There is no logical reason to believe this would offend him. Again, why are wringing your hands in angst over this letter?
“I see. Thanks for the subtle methodology. And by the way, his use of quotation marks over born again” is rather crude and cynical shot at that phrase in the context of Baldwin.”
No, it isn’t. The use of quote marks is perfectly good simply because the term is in dispute as to its meaning and course.
“Baldwin states he is a born again Christian and the author, instead of accepting the genuiness of that phrase to Baldwin prefers to treat it in a patronizing way. Nice.”
Incorrect. Claveau merely uses quote marks to show the phrase is in dispute not that Baldwin’s conviction is unreal.
You wrote:
“I guess that’s a matter of interpretation. I don’t think 7 years is “new”. 2 years would be “new”.”
He is 42 years old. So, according to his understanding, he has been a committed Christian for only 1/6th of his life. To Claveau that might seem like a recent conversion.
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.