| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
Wyclif was heretical inasmuch as he attacked the Mass. Hus unfortunately, kept taunting the Church and using the example of Wyclif to wave at them. Not saying that they are correct, but they reacted to the level of opposition, and unfortunately, they violated their own statement of safe conduct and had Hus executed. Wyclif was never executed, tortured, imprisoned, or even arrested, by the way.
see there, your careless abuse and flinging of pings with bands on them have caused the ping patrol to limit your access and denied you pings. You should be sent to the pingatentiary
lol. I pray all our posts are ping-worthy and that they shall not ping-pong back to us void.
lol. I pray all our posts are ping-worthy and that they shall not ping-pong back to us void.
lol. Pinging and ponging in duplicate as we speak.
Interesting statement, given the preponderance of Pauline verse at daily and Sunday Mass (more than any other author), and, if you scroll through the proofs of the Catechism, you will see more Paul than any other author, as well. I contest this statement.
"Interpreting Paul in light of the Gospels" is code for ignoring Paul completely whenever he disagrees with Catholic theology (which is often).
Negative, it is never.
Recently you have said yourself that you do not believe Paul was Trinitarian.
I have said that Pauline verse does not contain Trinitarian proofs for such as the Athenasian Creed. And I am correct, which is why I am attacked personally for that statement, and not refuted by the Bible Believing (tm) folks on this forum. Since you have brought it up, how about taking that challenge yourself? I double dare you!!!
Therefore, you must ignore the many Pauline scriptures that have been given to you showing that he understood and believed in the Trinity.
Negative again. If you read Paul through our Nicean understanding of the Trinity, Paul simply teaches at worst subordinationalism. Paul's verses fit within our understanding of the Triune God; they do not teach it completely. This is yet another reason why those who teach that Paul is the theology, while the Gospels are the chronicles, are wrong.
I have found that the correct interpretation of Paul according to Catholicism leaves little left of Paul's actual words.
What are your actual findings?
I think that Judith Anne's testimony of her opinion of Paul's actual words is really closer to the true opinion of many Catholics about Paul (at least around here).
And you are welcome to your opinion; however Catholic theology and the Catechism are plain and available to all men to see.
The other approach is like yours, say that Paul was right when read through the prism of the Catholic view of the Gospels.
Paul is not God; God is not speaking through Paul; therefore Paul should be considered through the words of God, and not vice versa.
The problem with this, though, is that it obliterates what Paul actually said and changes it into something completely different. So, to me when a Catholic says that Paul was right he is really speaking of some other invented Paul, not the one portrayed in the Bible.
The early Church did not believe in double predestination, and neither did Paul according to his writings. Yet there are entire sects that base the foundations of their theology upon that misunderstanding.
Wyclif was never even arrested by the Church. Hus basically kept poking the bear with a stick until the bear reacted, unfortunately.
Wyclif was never even arrested.
No, he was just tried posthumously, exhumed, his books and his long-buried remains burned, and the ashes strewn in the River Swift.
What was that all about anyway? I guess it could have been worse, his actual corpse could have been put on trial like Pope Formosus was in the infamous “Cadaver Synod.”
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/87873/Cadaver-Synod
Both forms are correct.
You have every right not to be interested in my opinions.
I wasn't asking for your permission.
And I have every right to be interested in yours.
Certainly, you might learn something.
Christians have a duty to preach the Gospel correctly and to rebuke error concerning Christ.
And, aside from when you are discussing the Catholic Church, you do a fairly good job at that.
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus: Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ..." -- Ephesians 1:1-2
I see. Biblical inerrancy says that since it says that Paul wrote it, then Paul wrote it. Is that the logic?
Various treatises are available that consider that Paul may have written Colossians, but did not write 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus. One of the most convincing theories I have read put Timothy as the author, influenced heavily by John (who was also tied to Ephesus). At any rate, Paul is in prison, chained up and not likely to be allowed to write.
And you are correct. Paul also never wrote Hebrews.
We have Ephesians stating that Paul wrote the letter, verse one. So is God then a liar?
Actually that’s transliterated Greek or biological/scientific Latin. But who’s counting?
lol
Some? How many is 'some'. We have been well instructed by you that 'often' means 'once'. We Catholics use the base 10 decimal system. What do the Reformed use?
Applause. That is one of our efforts here - to introduce the Gospel of Christ to the Reformed. Hint: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Since the Reformed have removed them to the dusty vaults of the neglected, perhaps I could share with you a Catholic Bible.
Hus taunted the Church authorities to the point where they reacted in similar fashion to the monarchs of the day. Look what happened when the renegade king Henry Tudor had Tyndale arrested and killed, even though Tudor was an enemy of the Church.
Fascinating how such a chunk of such folks
are sooooooooooooooooo
extremely INTOLERANT of not being able to play the
DOUBLE-STANDARD FOXTROT
as though other folks enjoyed it!
Wyclif was never even arrested.
Wycliffe was in poor health and died before he could be arrested. Prior to that, he was under the protection of the King and the English Nobility. The Pope was basically Persona Non Grata in England at the time because of his alliance with France which was then England’s mortal enemy.
So basically the Church didn’t have the power to arrest him. They were biding their time.
Later they were able to exhume his remains and burn them however.
Hus was burned at the stake and later his bones were exhumed and they were also burned again....Nice, Huh?
Paul didn't write Ephesians, nor did he write Hebrews. God is not a liar.
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.