| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
Charles Dickens was published in 1950? Interesting. He died in 1870, yet he is well established with considerable evidence of his writings from many different sources. Were they his works? Since we have original publishings, the truth of the matter should be easily proved.
1950? You might mean Charles Dikkens, the well known Dutch author.
Henry was an intellectual, but lazy and self absorbed. And, like the monarchs of the era, easily angered and destructive to those to opposed them.
Right on the money, Mark. You have to be aware that Protestant definition of the Holy Trinity does not necessarily correspond to the Nicean understanding of the universal Church. Theirs is, in fact, often subrdinaitonalist, especially when it comes to the Holy Spirit, whom Paul hardy even mentions. Paul's suboridnaitonalism is strictly of the Son. To him the HS is the third fiddle, and only the Father is called God.
This is yet another reason why those who teach that Paul is the theology, while the Gospels are the chronicles, are wrong
Those who teach that Paul is theology (Protestants) profess Paulianity and not Christianity.
Tyndale’s English translation of the New Testament was published and distributed with attempts to suppress it in England, in 1525, MarkBsnr.
Without a particular subject in mind, comparing any of God's word to any other of God's word is as useful as comparing Hanzo swords against each other. You just shouldn't do it. :) God did not have bad days and good days when authoring His word. The light of God's word is the entirety of God's word.
My opinion of Paul is my opinion of Paul. I speak for no one else, certainly not the Catholic Church. The fact that I do not like him does not mean that I throw him out. I just don't like him.
That's right, and I offered my opinion that you are not alone in your opinion. :) I just mean that I have seen SOME (not all) other Catholics post similar comments to yours, and that these differ in approach from those of Mark (and I'm sure others). I don't remember Mark ever saying anything to the effect that he didn't like Paul, but that he liked him just fine when read in a certain way.
LOL.
If I have to use /sar tags, so do you. Harumph!
LOL.
Sounds kind of spiteful to me.
I just don't see the point for someone to go to that level to make a point.
Henry Tudor, in 1525, didn't care whatsoever. It wasn't until he started to come into opposition with the Church that he started to take some notice. Do you have any evidence that Tudor attempted to suppress it, or if he even cared?
Third fiddle? A mere messenger boy or robot slave (hmm, that reminds me of Calvinist theology) of either Jesus the subordinate, or the Father. If the Father raises Jesus from the dead, and sends Jesus, and approves of Jesus to the crowds, and gives Jesus all his power, then Jesus must obviously be subordinate to the Father, right? Those who teach that Paul is theology (Protestants) profess Paulianity and not Christianity.
This was condemned 1700 years ago.
The local church authorities overreacted. I will not blame Hus for this, as the local bishop was enraged to the point of doing something that was not of the Faith. Hus kept poking the bear with a stick.
Does the Catholic church not have more serious issues with which to concern itself that arguing over a dead body?
Good grief, the more I hear, the more glad I am to have left that organization behind.
Madhouse indeed.
His idea.
His command.
Ask Him.
What about forgiving 70 x 7?
Seems to me that the Pharisees kept at it with Jesus and He didn’t react that way.
Yet, until the innovations of the Reformation, nobody even remotely thought that Jesus was unimportant in the scheme of things. The Church considered, and always has, the quotations of Jesus to be superior to any words ever uttered by man. It's a recognition of God thing.
I don't remember Mark ever saying anything to the effect that he didn't like Paul, but that he liked him just fine when read in a certain way.
I like Paul just fine, when I have the teachings of Jesus first and foremost. Read through the words of Jesus. Again, it's a recognition of God thing. We Catholics have a predilection to recognize God. Not the man made concoctions that litter the landscape, but the age-old recognition of God that the Faith has handed down for 2000 years.
The rationale was that he was leading otherwise good and pious people astray. They were also following the instructions to treat the willful sinners as tax collectors. They, of course, were wrong.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, 2008
William Tyndale , c.1494-1536, English biblical translator (see Bible ) and Protestant martyr. He was probably ordained shortly before entering (c.1521) the household of Sir John Walsh of Gloucestershire as chaplain and tutor. His sympathy with the new learning led to disputes with the clergy, and he moved to London, determined to translate the New Testament into English. Finding that publication could not be accomplished in England, Tyndale went to Hamburg in 1524, visited Martin Luther in Wittenberg, and at Cologne began (1525) the printing of the New Testament. Interrupted by an injunction, he had the edition completed at Worms. When copies entered England, they were denounced by the bishops and suppressed (1526); Cardinal Wolsey ordered Tyndale seized at Worms. Living in concealment, Tyndale pursued his translation, issuing the Pentateuch (1530) and the Book of Jonah (1536). His work was later the basis of the King James Version of the Bible. His tracts in defense of the principles of the English Reformation, The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528) and The Parable of the Wicked Mammon (1528), were denounced by Sir Thomas More.
Since, until the end, they did not use violence, neither did He. He was able to contend with them with the masterful use of language and knowledge of the OT Scripture. He was very very masterful and was able not only to talk to the crowds, but to the learned as well.
"The priest is not “another Christ.”
The priest acts in the place of Christ.....duh!
Mary is not a “co-redeemer.”
The Catechism refers to Mary as the "Mother of the Redeemer". Nowhere does it refer to her as a co-redeemer or redemptrix as you have blathered so often.
Dead saints now in heaven are not “mediators between God and men.”
The Catechism states: "480 - Jesus Christ is true God and true man, in the unity of his divine person; for this reason he is the one and only mediator between God and men." It reiterates this exact phrase no less than 12 times.
I don’t get it, either. None of that was addressed, I noticed. Just controverting over the Catholicism of Henry VIII.
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.