Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
If you can get that miracle to occur, I WILL bow down and worship you like we're always accused of doing to slightly burned toast or whatever Klan pamphlet theory is being spewed at the time. That dude couldn't give a straight-forward answer to what year he thought it should be currently called - literally, I was asking a while back.
LOL, where have you been all this time?
Ah, but it wasn’t personal, dontcha know:)
But, but, but, there is nothing beyond the pale or too offensive to say about Catholics. Just look at the tacit approval communicated by the silence of the self appointed hall monitors when these extreme statements are being made.
Don't RCs know anything?
Very good. However, my question was in response to this statement you made in post 3930:
The only "miracle" men need today is the fact that Christ rose from the dead.
You see, this statement about the Resurrection makes no mention of Him dying for our sins and you say (by the way, it is not a miracle, God need not perform miracle on Himself) that we only need the fact that He rose from the dead.
God's grace which is bestowed on undeserving men is that He became man and took on the penalty for our sins and paid for every one of them.
I agree.
This grace is proven by the visual, actual miracle of the resurrection which confirmed Christ is God and that God's grace is true.
You believe that the Resurrection is the only proof of God's grace?
But, it wasn’t meant to be personal.
Cm’on get with the game.
2 Corinthians 10:11-12
Such people should realize that what we are in our letters when we are absent, we will be in our actions when we are present.
We do not dare to classify or compare ourselves with some who commend themselves. When they measure themselves by themselves and compare themselves with themselves, they are not wise.
You can't argue with Scripture. Well..
Here is yet ANOTHER interesting tidbit in the life of Peter, according to Rome.
Col. 4:7-14. Verse 13 in particular.."..These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort to me."
Once again Peter is not on that list. Tychicys, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus are mentioned here and no doubt they were all fellowworkers of Paul. The last three were of the circumcision, Jews. Further proof that Peter was NOT the pope at Rome at this time. This book was written about 64 A.D, during THE VERY TIME PETER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE POPE. Either Paul totally ignored Peter, once again, or Peter was NOT THERE, never mind as the so-called HEAD of the Church.
It’s no “miracle” that Christ was sinless. Christ is God. He can not sin.
You didn’t realize that?
What appears to be a blind spot in the RM rules, but is well known and exploited by the most wretched of anti-Catholics, is the fact to devout Catholics an insult or affront to the Church and the Eucharist is more personally insulting than any "personal" name calling.
If one were to make those kind of statements about my wife or kids I would break their nose. How much more insulted should I be when the insults are against the one thing in the universe that is held higher?
If we dissed the Bible as much as you all say we do, then it would be entirely consistent with THAT view (not saying it's ours) that Peter's thought and preaching were not preserved in Scripture, wouldn't it?
But more realistically (get comfortable, this may be long ...) there are two facets of the Catholic view of Church and ministry that are under-appreciated by our critics.
The first is "subsidiarity." This is big, very big.
When the apostles decide they can't be troubled with feeding the widows, they 'make' deacons. They give them the job. That's all we hear about it.
The Catholic supposition (and I stress here that it's a supposition) is that the deacons didn't report weekly to the Apostles and the Apostles did not hang around the distribution center poking their noses into it. They gave 'em the job and figured that if neither the widows nor the deacons were complaining everything was copacetic. The deacons did their thing, the apostles did theirs.
So we have a couple of Peter's barn-burners in Acts and a brace of letters. He didn't need, and we didn't need him, to have his finger in every pie. He does whatever being 'first among the apostles' meant to him, puts out what fires need putting out, teaches, sticks to the breaking of bread and the prayers, and so forth. Somebody else gets inspired to write most of the NT? That's fine with Peter.
The idea of subsidiarity (and this mitigates the heck out of PapaBenXVI's one world gummint idea) is that responsibility and authority devolve as far downwards as it is possible for them to go.
My example when I'm teaching is the time I saw a toddler in diapers walking down the middle of a street. I did not find a phone booth (this was a while back) and call the cops or CPS. I stopped my car and got the kid out of the road and found the (white as a sheet) responsible adult, and gave him a look and the child.
No muss, no fuss. Responsibility at the lowest level.
The higher levels are to provide "subsidium," -- loose translation "help," only when needed. E.g.: if there had been 50 kids, I would have asked somebody to call the cops.
The widows have a complaint, it works its way up to the Apostles. They work out a solution and hand it over and that's that.
It's very like US Federalism was meant to be.
The other concept would be that of vocation -- which somewhere in there means knowing the difference between a good job and YOUR job. Evidently, barring a couple of letters, it wasn't Peter's job to write revealed stuff. It might be cool, it might have goosed up the concept of Petrine primacy or somesuch. It just wasn't his job.
If more people who get married, especially in this age of gender-neutral marriages, asked if being married was their vocation instead of just something they wanted to do, there'd be happier marriages, on average.
So if a non-Catholic says, "If Peter is so important, why isn't more of his stuff in the NT?" the question just passes us by. It wasn't his call, and the writers of inspired texts didn't need his help.
I hope that is some how some kind of helpful maybe.
Not sure about the others, but, yes, I did know this.
"You see, this statement about the Resurrection makes no mention of Him dying for our sins and you say (by the way, it is not a miracle, God need not perform miracle on Himself) that we only need the fact that He rose from the dead."
**************************
Good point. Without the connection to Him dying for our sins, what would be the meaning of the Resurrection?
The refusal to answer in a straightforward way reveals everything we need to know regarding the truth of the matter.
Non-combative question: Is it theorized (if so, by whom) that Paul wrote Acts?
You don’t believe Mad Dawg, that something as important to The Catholic Church, the holder of the keys of the kingdom, and the Church that holds salvation for everyone, the doctrines and traditions, would not have been inspired to be written down by Peter for inclusion in the Bible? He had time on his hands, he delegated jobs to others, according to your post. It just seems that something as important as basing an ENTIRE religion around would have been uppermost to get down in the Bible. As part of the inspired Word of God. For all to see, in ONE Book. It just doesn’t seem likely that God would have had all this information that He wanted to give to the Church and not give it to His first pope..
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.