Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Part of the bishop's function is to enforce orthodoxy. That includes all theological aspects including worship. We have had and currently have a number of bishops (I'm sure that you follow the news) who have not. It is a Church shame that they have not been dealt with more swiftly than anyone else. The bishops are the servants of the servants of Christ. Yet they are called to much more than the laity. When they fail, they can fail large - witness Marcion and Tertullian.
POST #3: "These fake stories are pretty funny. They always contain plenty of details that reveal the fabrication. Among many other false notes, I find it amusing that a supposed former Dominican would describe the Dominicans as a monastic order when the entire point of the Dominicans in the first place is that they are not monastics."
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
I don't recall any Proddys that chronically tend to post in such an attitude and style.
We may be skeptical but we extend at least a token amount of benefit of the doubt.
In POST AFTER POST AFTER POST AFTER POST
the Proddy assertions--even the excellent personal narrative at the beginning of this thread--is wholesale castigated as false just on the basis of very ignorant bias.
Sheesh what a collection of jerks.
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL personal narratives of Evangelicals crossing the Tiber.
IIRC, NOT A SINGLE PRODDY HAS EVER POSTED A SIMILAR POST AGAINST SUCH A PERSONAL NARRATIVE. WE HAVE PERSISTENTLY TAKEN IT AS REAL AS STATED.
We may have quibbled with the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn leading to such a shift. However, we did not quibble WITH THE PERSON'S STATED PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.
We aren't that unrealistic, nor that stupid, nor that blind, nor that rigidly arrogantly biased. I can't even think of a single exception. Perhaps Alex Murphy will tell me if I'm wrong.
Incredible. WHAT OUTRAGEOUS DUPLICITY! WHAT A CHRONIC HORRIFIC DOUBLE STANDARD. AND NOT A SHRED OF EVER ADMITTING IT! SHEESH. I'm beginning to think that at least SOME Jihadi's might be more reasonable. Incredible.
AGREED.
However, with this crew, it seems to be one of the HALLOWED STATIONS OF THE WHITE HANKY.
I am not going to entertain any discussion with you until you reel back in your false assertion (there is apparently a prohibition against using the “L” word) about me crowing about my degrees. I have never mentioned them on the Religion Forum.
I so hesitate to wade in on this debate as I honestly have never heard whether or not the resurrection was indeed a miracle ever questioned.
I have always considered everything God has done a miracle.
Father Corapi has said that God breathed only one word and that Word is Jesus and from this Word everything came into being. Everything that is except the Triune God. Certainly the creation of the heavens and earth along with everything in it is miraculous. Which is why His revealed Word is so much more infinite that just the words contained in the Bible.
A miracle by its definition is a super natural happening which cannot be explained in human words and understanding.
Some definitions refer to it as an Act of God.
In light of this, there can be no doubt that the resurrection was in fact an Act of God and therefore a miracle.
It is pointless to try to defend otherwise and it is most likely that it was said in haste or without thought as to the implications or repercussions.
Much like when one poster here claimed that it is a miracle that Jesus was/is sinless. That is no miracle, but rather the very nature of God.
I guess "readable" is in the eye of the beholder, no? You see, I "get" quix. I appreciate his humor, his wit, his sometimes amazing spiritual insight even though I may not always agree with his every post. I even like some of YOUR posts. :o)
It’s called the faith OF Christ. Not faith IN Christ, which is what we possess. There is a difference. The death, buriel and resurrection happened because of the faith OF Christ. You probably never heard about that in your church.
Me too, but I think I understood Wagglebee's point to be rhetorical rather than theological; Jesus is the miracle and the individual actions and circumstances but extensions of that single miracle, not separate events.
What I am not going to do is to extrapolate that single statement into a heresy and then associate that heresy with an entire group of people.
When posters are so fluid with their facts, it is difficult to understand where they are at this particular moment in time, since a minute from now they may be in yet another alternative reality.
Get the picture, pal? I did NOT say the additional three weddings were high RC masses, but merely Roman Catholic weddings.
I am not your pal. I do not believe that you were a bridesmaid at three Roman Catholic High Mass weddings, nor do I believe that you had a chance at three more Roman Catholic weddings. You cannot tell me what type of church that they were held at and therefore I do not believe you.
And again I'll assert you know nothing about sororities and the summer after graduation.
I know something of sororities before graduation.
The fact you are so incredulous is, in itself, incredible. I had no idea I was participating in something that so many Roman Catholics apparently wanted for themselves but couldn't muster.
We Catholics rejoice in the Sacraments from God. Pagans who trivialize the Sacraments cannot in all reality be called Christians.
Envy is not attractive.
We have the example of Babs, thank you kindly.
Oh to be sure. I don’t disagree, but in a thread such as this, that small statement becomes another arrow in the quiver of the attacker.
It allows them to focus on one innocuous thing and blow it out of proportion as has been done here.
I know that wagglebee is a fine and confident Catholic able to defend herself and what she says, I should probably have gone with my first instinct which was to steer clear. LOL>
LOL.
HERE IT IS IN MY USUAL ARIAL BLACK:
I don't recall any Proddys that chronically tend to post in such an attitude and style.
We may be skeptical but we extend at least a token amount of benefit of the doubt.
In POST AFTER POST AFTER POST AFTER POST
the Proddy assertions--even the excellent personal narrative at the beginning of this thread--is wholesale castigated as false just on the basis of very ignorant bias.
Sheesh what a collection of jerks.
THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL personal narratives of Evangelicals crossing the Tiber.
IIRC, NOT A SINGLE PRODDY HAS EVER POSTED A SIMILAR POST AGAINST SUCH A PERSONAL NARRATIVE. WE HAVE PERSISTENTLY TAKEN IT AS REAL AS STATED.
We may have quibbled with the reasonableness of the conclusions drawn leading to such a shift. However, we did not quibble WITH THE PERSON'S STATED PERSONAL EXPERIENCES.
We aren't that unrealistic, nor that stupid, nor that blind, nor that rigidly arrogantly biased. I can't even think of a single exception. Perhaps Alex Murphy will tell me if I'm wrong.
Incredible. WHAT OUTRAGEOUS DUPLICITY! WHAT A CHRONIC HORRIFIC DOUBLE STANDARD. AND NOT A SHRED OF EVER ADMITTING IT! SHEESH. I'm beginning to think that at least SOME Jihadi's might be more reasonable. Incredible.
BLESS YOU. Have a great weekend.
Quix, the only personal narratives you have accepted on this whole thread are those of the antiCatholics. Personal narratives of Catholics are met with white hanky rhetoric and multicoloured and multifonted and multisized posts. You claim that Protestants accept personal narratives; that is not true of the Protestant community in general and specifically not true with you as evidenced on this thread, when it comes to Catholic personal narrative.
I know she is and if I ever have a "WTF?" moment with her she has earned the respect for me to do it privately, as have you.
” Everything she (the Church) holds to be true and necessary for the salvation of souls is within Scripture both explicitly and implicitly.”
The key word here is implicitly. There is Scripture that points to the Assumption of Mary. It is not explicitly spelled out, but there is Scripture that
points towards it. As the following (excerpted) says, NOTHING IN SCRIPTURE PRECLUDES THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html#the_bvm-VI
Mary's Assumption into Heaven
Gen. 5:24, Heb. 11:5 - Enoch was bodily assumed into heaven without dying. Would God do any less for Mary the Ark of the New Covenant?
2 Kings 2:11-12; 1 Mac 2:58 - Elijah was assumed into heaven in fiery chariot. Jesus would not do any less for His Blessed Mother.
Psalm 132:8 - Arise, O Lord, and go to thy resting place, thou and the Ark (Mary) of thy might. Both Jesus and Mary were taken up to their eternal resting place in heaven.
2 Cor. 12:2 - Paul speaks of a man in Christ who was caught up to the third heaven. Mary was also brought up into heaven by God.
Matt. 27:52-53 - when Jesus died and rose, the bodies of the saints were raised. Nothing in Scripture precludes Mary's assumption into heaven.
1 Thess. 4:17 - we shall be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Rev. 12:1 - we see Mary, the “woman,” clothed with the sun. While in Rev. 6:9 we only see the souls of the martyrs in heaven, in Rev. 12:1 we see Mary, both body and soul.
2 Thess. 2:15 - Paul instructs us to hold fast to oral (not just written) tradition. Apostolic tradition says Mary was assumed into heaven. While claiming the bones of the saints was a common practice during these times (and would have been especially important to obtain Mary's bones as she was the Mother of God), Mary's bones were never claimed. This is because they were not available. Mary was taken up body and soul into heaven.
I am not sure the reason for this post to me, but please, since you felt the need to aim it at me, let me respond by saying...
The faith OF Christ in what? Himself?
I must admit in terms of faith, I have always understood it to be the faith we have IN Christ and IN His life, death and resurrection.
I have also always understood that Christ endured these things out of LOVE for us.
A much more cogent answer. Thank you.
My apologies to wagglebee and you for having trod where I should have not.
I believe I quite correctly stated that all Catholic doctrine can be found in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly.
But, how dare I use my own words to defend myself.
Dr. E.: “Perhaps you might try it sometime when you’re not busy on your knees saying all those prayers you took great pains to tell us about.”
That post and this one, with the gif, is nothing less than ridicule, and I believe that it is also making it personal.
Neither of these posts prove anything nor do they gain anything.
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.