| 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 These men are rightly indignant, and furious about the unjust accusations that cannot be proven but are never withdrawn.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!
Me too.
He’s very REAL.
Besides, we both seem to like lengthy convoluted sentences! LOL.
VERY WELL and unassailably [rationally] put, imho.
THANKS MUCH.
Namely, when Paul is difficult to understand as noted in 2 Peter 3:15-16, I would recommend curling up in a overstuffed chair with a hot cup of tea or coffee and reading the Gospel of John casually, like a love letter which it is.
For me, the Gospel of John puts Paul's epistles in context.
That assertion reads like some sort of lazy cop-out—particularly for folks who are as bright as so many hereon are.
Folks who can at least purport to discern, analyze, shred Protty postings hereon . . . can quite easily enough wade through even Paul’s convoluted sentences.
At some point, one wonders what part the ‘will’ plays in such attitudes and perspectives.
INDEED.
A great exhortation for all Believers, imho.
What I think is hilarious, is that ALL y’all get all heated up when somebody simply doesn’t think the world of your favorite Bible author.
I mean, the response has been literally hysterical.
NO!
That’s NOT the point.
The point is that you asserted that you felt Paul was
INSANE.
That’s a rather serious assault on a scribe of a major portion of God’s Word.
Quite logically, God disagrees.
It’s not wise for anyone to disagree with God—particularly Believers.
I CERTAINLY
think it’s MUCH WISER
to read Paul drinking tea or coffee
instead of alcohol.
Thank you, Alamo-Girl!
You are quite welcome, dear GiovannaNicoletta!
Certainly, alcohol is a problem for many but my doctor believes a glass of wine a day is good for you. LOLOL!
Evidently.
And I do like a low alcohol slightly sweet, fruity wine.
Probably drink less than 4-6 glasses of such a year, however. Don’t think I could afford 1 a day!
There are other ways to get the antioxidents etc. that would be far safer for those with problems with alcohol.
Thanks.
So I understand.
I think SAM’s CLUB carries a red fruit juice drink that includes a lot of that chemical.
Thx for the link.
I think I will concur with Alamo Girl with the citation from St. Peter:
2 Pet 3:14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace. 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you: 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity, Amen.
Alamo Girl's advice about getting a cup of tea and sitting in an overstuffed chair and going through them slowly, along with re-reading the Gospel of John is very sage advice, as well.
You are quite right, though, Judith Anne, that many of St. Paul's writings are confusing to the point of frustration. Many of them bear long meditation rather than quick reading, as they are trying to synthesize the meanings of many complex Old Testament concepts and cast them in the proper light of the Advent of Christ. That is no easy job. One of the key examples, for me, was presented in Romans 7.
But here's the key point: just because our understanding of something is convoluted doesn't make the object of our understanding invalid...it simply means we need to work to comprehend better (yes, there is the off chance that there was a faulty transcription or translation that we are dealing with, such as the famous "Johannine Comma," but those are by far the exception to the rule)
As a guidepost, we always must remember that our Faith is that which was given by Christ to the apostles and passed on to this day. As such, the foremost consideration and the source, par excellence, is the Word of God. Therefore, Sacred Scripture...the written record of those apostolic teachings...can simply not be in error.
We are fortunate, as Catholics, to have available for us the Magesterium of the Church, which has preserved those apostolic teachings and provided the appropriate application throughout the centuries. In light of that, you might wish to take some of the confusing portions and research what has been written about them in a reference such as Biblia Clerus. Alternatively, the Navarre Bible is quite good, as well.
Having said that, I will likewise concur with the very learned Mad Dawg in that I, too, am quite attached to the Pauline Letters.
Well, yes and no.
In the review Alex Murphy posted by Neuhaus of a book about this mess, Neuhaus says Chrysostom said the road to hell is paved with bishops' skulls, and the old joke is that the specific "operation" of the Holy Ghost which makes a bishop is "removal of the spine."
It is not on the holiness of the clergy that the Catholic Church bases its claim to be holy. We are well aware of corrupt and vicious clergy. Dante put lots of popes in his Inferno.
The recent cover-ups (as opposed to those decades old) really are inexplicable. But while there are some bishops of quite remarkable piety, there are too many who are cowardly. And I think some of the more "executive" bishops probably don't have a very deep self-understanding -- something I've seen in other executive and management types. And no doubt many are reasonably good bureaucrats especially skilled at keeping their heads down and looking busy. I doubt that many thoughtful Catholics would give me a lot of grief over these remarks.
All this is meant to say that it has been settled pretty much since Augustine that the moral character of the cleric does not touch the efficacy of the sacraments he may administer. Of COURSE Bishops usually try to find men of good character and Popes, with the lousy information available to them try to appoint men of good character to the episcopacy. But I think few (though still too many) of the Catholic laity confuse the holiness of the office with the sanctity of the man holding the office. For us, the first is undeniable, the second dubious.
But I think the complaints of unfairness are somewhat justified. It's not that the guilty priests and bishops should be let off. But it does seem that people go from "5% or fewer of the clergy are involved with these abominations," to "The Catholic Church is bunk," a little more eagerly than the situation warrants.
Part of this is, I suspect, the lingering myth that the Catholic Church is this marvellously intricate and smooth-functioning bureaucracy where some Vatican Intelligence Service will know tomorrow of a heretical statement made today. Part is the mistaken notion that everyone below the Pope answers to the Pope immediately and obediently, while the reality is that each holder of some chunk o' turf or other jealously guards his prerogatives, while the laity pick and choose what they will obey and what they won't. Part is failing to appreciate what it means for the Church to be so large. Thinking for a minute what "a billion members on the books" means would suggest the natural conclusion that controlling this outfit is virtually impossible.
Sorry for verbosity. I just want to add that I don't delegate my spiritual life to the clergy in a way that leads me to think that they are all far more moral, pious, or holy than the laity. It's harder to forgive them when they are jerks or vicious sinners, but it's just as important as any forgiveness is.
Now I want to put together a “Through the Letters of Paul with Gun and Camera” class and get hired by your parish to teach it.
How exactly is Paul “a goofball?” He was an educated Roman Jew, a Torah scholar and teacher. He was preordained by God to be the apostle to the gentiles. He used his deep knowledge of Torah and the Prophets to explain Christianity. Preaching to the Greeks he is responsible for the world becoming Christian.
Jesus knew him personally and taught him. The fact that you and others have no gift to understand his writings does not make him “goofy”
The depth of Paul's understanding of the OT scriptures is what propelled Christianity. Of course no one will understand a word of his without the indwelling gift of the HS.
Oh, sure, he was a big guy, as opposed to Mary, who was just a Jewish momma.
Paul never has and never will impress me. I didn’t just skim the Bible and then ignore Paul, I read the whole thing cover to cover multiple times, and not in a rush, either.
It seems that it’s sacrilege to dislike Paul, or to refuse to take him seriously. Feh, say I.
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.