| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/28/2010 11:54:24 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
Per poster’s request |
Posted on 04/18/2010 9:49:35 PM PDT by Judith Anne
I seriously wonder about some FReepers, sometimes. Any other person accused of a crime would be defended by every FReeper as being innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I've seen whole threads written by men who have been accused of child abuse by ex-wives out to deny them their visitation rights or to wrest more money out of them. These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.
Yet where are those FReepers when a PRIEST is accused? Where is the presumption of innocence? Suddenly, every accusation becomes a verdict, and not only the accused but his entire organization and all its adherents are held responsible.
I can only wonder what some of these so-called conservatives (who so faithfully defend the Constitution) would do, if THEY were the ones accused! It is a nightmare for any man -- all of you know how even the accusation stains the man forever, even if it is proven false!
Not only that, many here assert that the problems of 30, 40 and even 50 years ago must be tried in the media TODAY!
Remember the Duke rape case? There are more similarities than differences here. The priests are accused, nifonged, and instead of being defended, they are vilified!
What other man of you could stand under the weight of such an accusation trumpeted by the press, and come out whole? None! And such accusations made, LONG after the statute of limitations has passed, sometimes even after the accused is dead and buried for YEARS -- are YOU one of those who automatically, reflexively, spitefully, and gleefully act as judge, jury, and executioner?
Women! What if it were YOUR HUSBAND, YOUR BROTHER, YOUR FATHER, YOUR UNCLE, YOUR SON who was accused? Wouldn't you want the best defense possible? Wouldn't YOU believe in their innocence? Wouldn't YOU help protect your loved ones as much as possible? And yet, YOU JUDGE THE CHURCH FOR DOING WHAT YOU WOULD DO?
Shame! Vast shame! On all who have sinned against the innocent!
That’s a new one on me, actually. Just when I thought I heard it all.
Likewise there are many Catholic sects.
Which one is right?
Cant’ they get their act together either?
Protestantism is no solely defined by Calvinism, as I’m sure the FR Catholics well know.
But it seems to be a common tactic to discredit any group, to take the teachings of one small, often extreme, portion of it and apply it to the group as a whole to try to discredit anyone affiliated with any part of the whole.
No Scripture. Just the Traditions of the first generation of the Church. Which occurred before most NT Scripture was even written.
Amen...hallelujah...and AMEN!!! Yet they probably still count us in their proclaimed 1.5 billion members. I am so glad our Heavenly Father looks upon the heart and knows those who are his!
Nope. The Jebbies never had hold of me. The point is that Peter was given the keys for the salvation of the world - through the doors of Heaven. Jesus still holds the keys for the damnation of indivduals - through the doors of hell. This indicates that mankind generally was made for salvation - unlike Reformed beliefs - but individual men, Judged by Jesus to hell, insist upon their own individual damnation. Peter handles the ordinary. Jesus handles the extra-ordinary - the ones that condemn themselves on a case by case basis.
He'd keep an eye on things.
In all sincerity, this is error. It is not Catholic belief and has never been.
Looks like many good Catholics justifiably hold the Apostle Paul in high esteem.
Maybe we just have representatives of some strange offshoot of Catholicism posting these denigrations of Paul here on FR? I can't quite wrap my mind around it, but here they are ... he's not a trinitarian, he's nuts, he's this negative thing or that.
Incredible. Just incredible.
I wonder. We don't seem to hear much from anyone except the Calvinists. Certainly we don't hear from those who lace the courage to disagree with them.
But it seems to be a common tactic to discredit any group, to take the teachings of one small, often extreme, portion of it and apply it to the group as a whole to try to discredit anyone affiliated with any part of the whole.
It SURE DOES! Look at all the folks who want to condemn the entire Catholic Church just because I don't particularly think highly of St. Paul's writings. The ones that actually ARE his, that is, not all the ones attributed to him.
I will defer to a real expert in shallowness.
Does this mean that Jesus was subordinate to the Father???
The Johnnine verses you quote say so.
Your Pauline verses are completely irrelevant to the issue.
If you can construct the Athenasian Creed's Trinitarian formula from the writings of Paul, please do so. Otherwise, please simply admit that you have failed theology 101 yet again and move on.
Nope. I’m a garden variety Catholic, but I have my own opinions on St. Paul.
ROFLOL!!
With every year passing, they are increasingly easy to count.
Can you name them? I am unaware of any Catholic sects.
I don’t know of any Catholic sects, either.
Oh, oh. You have just invoked an LDS magic word. You are not Mormon are you?
The book of Acts covers about 30 years of church history from the Day of Pentecost on. That sounds like the first generation of church history to me. And Luke compiled a very concise, methodical account of that first 30 years, and never mentioned the Peter stuff, although one could presume that since Luke traveled with Paul, he would have had opportunity to actually meet Peter.
It appears that Luke joined up with Paul and started traveling with him in Acts 16 for a brief time, and then in Acts 20. He traveled with him to Jerusalem and met James, at least, and the other elders. While Peter is not mentioned specifically by name, it is not unlikely that Luke either met him or heard of him, but there is no mention of either being done. That would be quite an oversight if Peter had indeed been given such a place of preeminence.
If those traditions of men occurred BEFORE most of the NT Scripture were written, then why weren’t they incorporated into the Scripture that was written AFTER those traditions were allegedly established?
None of our Reformed friends would even think of trying to understand that post.
Well, here you go...
A Brief Comparative Study of:
Arminianism and Calvinism
http://www.the-highway.com/compare.html
The vast majority of Protestant churches adhere to doctrine that is more Arminian than Calvinistic. Even you Catholics acknowledge that the Calvinistic Presbyterian churches are few in number. So why the need to paint all Protestant Christianity with that brush?
Judith Anne: “It SURE DOES! Look at all the folks who want to condemn the entire Catholic Church just because I don’t particularly think highly of St. Paul’s writings. The ones that actually ARE his, that is, not all the ones attributed to him.”
No , the Catholic church history is enough to condemn it without your help.
Denigrations of the Apostle Paul, or St. Paul for you, strike me as being purely motivated by the fact that some Protestant churches hold him in very high esteem. Reactionary, in other words. Not very wise, and counter to your own early church, which included the writings of Paul in Biblical canon. Isn’t this doubting one’s own church? Is this not picking and choosing? What do Catholics call this, Cafeteria Catholic?
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.