Posted on 07/18/2010 6:04:05 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Interestingly, that source used for the misleading 33,000 “denoms” also scores the Catholic church as 5th on the all-time murder list, with roughly 5 million killed.
NOW, NOW,
YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER THAN THAT.
The Vatican rubber club NEVER stretches far enough to come back around and hit them on the head.
It only stretches far enough to assault Proddys—regardless of how far away they be.
No, it defies the bounds of credulity. I have an almost identical background as you and managed the altar server program at our parish for over 15 years. During that time I scheduled and trained the servers for every ceremony short of an exorcism. That any individual so openly hostile and contemptuous towards Catholics and Catholicism would find him or herself in the wedding party of even one high nuptial Mass is hard to believe. Three is pathological.
Dr. Eckleburg clearly stated she was informed it was a High Mass Wedding.
Surely you are aware the great percentage of Catholics who attend church only for Funerals, Weddings, Baptisms, and maybe Christmas and Easter have no idea whatsoever of the difference between the various Masses.
First, let me thank you for helping to return this thread to a legitimate discussion of the similarities and differences between our belief systems. Neither the truth nor honest opinion need lies to be understood and discussed.
That said, I do take issue with the above claim. While I do not disagree that even the Synoptic Gospel subset of the Bible is sufficient for Salvation, it simply cannot be supported from Scripture.
From where did Paul receive his teachings, those doctrines he taught for over two years? (Actually it was 3 years) Verse 24 tells you the answer.
"But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I might finish my course with joy, and the MINISTRY WHICH I HAVE RECEIVED OF THE LORD JESUS, TO TESTIFY THE GOSPEL OF THE GRACE OF GOD."
Paul was teaching the Ephesians THAT which he received by REVELATIONS from the Lord. They were NOT given to him by man, neither he received them of men, But by Christ. Traditions were not being established in Ephesus. THE WORD OF GOD revealed to Paul was being established in Ephesus.
There is a HUGE difference. Paul was given BY JESUS CHRIST, the dispensation of the Grace of God. As he received revelation, he taught those at Ephesus what Jesus Christ had given him.
Tradition in the sense of the Catholic Church is not comparable to what Paul was given. Unless you believe that your Church receives revelations from Christ to the Magesterium, and then on to the rest of the Church.
But THAT IS what your Church teaches isn't it? That you are receiving revelations from Christ? And that He gives them to the Pope, or the Magsterium, which is why they are "infallible", and on and on. Throughout the centuries...The revelations just go on and on until the last of the 'faithful' remaining is no longer.
1. PRIOR to HIS earthly birth.
TO the extent that it is appropriate to talk about 'before and after' in the Trinity, The Son wasn't Jesus until he was conceived.
2. IF said period is encapsulated and lain aside in some multiverse construction on reality—whenever such Timelessness of God decreed it.
See the remark about Before and After above.
3. Y’all seem stubbornly determined to build an eternal major MARIAN EDIFICE on that temporary fact.
Well, we're consistent at least. We think that in the Incarnation the Son 'took up manhood into God'. We do not view it as a temporary fact but 'now' as an eternal reality.
This is kind of important. The old joke about God giving us time to keep everything from happening at once has a serious side. From within time there was a time when the Incarnation had not happened. But such language is really tricky when talking about the eternal God.
For an amusiing, though difficult, approach to the whole deal about God's eternity, I recommend Feser's "The Last Superstition." He writes like the love child of Thomas Aquinas and Ann Coulter, and he gives a decent introduction to Catholic thought -- NOT dogma, thought.
But in the meantime, I think the confusion of 'carnal' and 'material' or 'physical' leads to an inadvertent gnosticism. The physical may be cursed, but under the curse it still has its archaic good. And as redeemed ... well who can imagine?
4. I say temporary because I do not think we time-bound finite creatures can have a definitive, omniscient, all inclusive view of such a thing given that our only frame of reference is within said linear time constraints.
Well don't make us claim more than we claim. Omniscience is not what we claim, not all-inclusiveness. But you say temporary, we don't. I don't see evidence FOR temporary. I do see reason for eternal.
As I wrote last night, the rejection of the "Reformation" was in some senses similar to the burning of the Library of Alexandria. Thought can do, has done, more than you know because your tradition rejects the thinking that did it and the books that tell about it.
5. We seem incapable of construing reality OTHER THAN as linear time with a ‘once a mother, always a mother’ mentality.
Yup. Guilty. Proudly guilty. Being a father changed who I am.
6. What if MOTHERHOOD like MARRIAGE is just not any part of our eternal reality or abode?
The closest I can come to this is my daughter's laughter when I told her that in one sense I am her father, and in another I am her brother.
Parenthood is not, or at least ought not, to be a purely carnal phenomenon. It is, in a way more remote than marriage, and consequently more of a ministry. Nancy and I have to stay around until one of us croaks. My kid gets to leave home when she's able, and whether she's here or away, as long as I can, I serve her as a guest and therefore in a certain way as (brace yourself) another Christ.
I'm wondering if you think the apostles are not apostles in heaven.
7. What an embarrassingly huge edifice of blasphemous idolatry to then have to toss in the garbage.
This amounts to saying, if we're wrong, we're wrong. If we're right then the shoe is on the other blasphemous foot. In the meantime, incoherent as we are, I think we are MORE coherent than those who disagree with us.
How closely related to the Apostles is Aquinas?
So what. I simply do not believe her and have no reason or evidence, in the light of her posting history, to do so.
Why, with these ongoing revelations, would God wait until 1946 to reveal the Assumption of Mary? If she were in heaven bodily, ALL THAT TIME, did HE not see her sitting on the right on of Jesus Christ, and feel the need to LET YOU ALL KNOW SHE WAS THERE, BODILY? That's a LONG wait for THAT revelation, my friend.
You are welcome?
Why, with these ongoing revelations, would God wait until 1946 to reveal the Assumption of Mary? If she were in heaven bodily, ALL THAT TIME, did HE not see her sitting on the right on of Jesus Christ, and feel the need to LET YOU ALL KNOW SHE WAS THERE, BODILY? That's a LONG wait for THAT revelation, my friend.
This post is for you, so I wanted to make SURE you got it.
To speak of the Anglican Rite as a denomination of Catholicism and the Methodists as a denomination of Anglicanism is to say two very different things.
Canterbury does not acknowledge Methodist orders or sacraments. But the Holy See DOES acknowledge the the orders and sacraments of the Anglican Rite Catholics. Methodism is not "part" of Anglicanism, but the Anglican Rite is part of Catholicism.
Its not a matter of daffynitions, it's a matter of truth, -- which may explain why it sounds foreign to some.
;-)
Not, "my steps". "HIS STEPS."
The Church declared the Assumption of Mary as infallible in 1946, but that was not the first dialog of it. Beginning with Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated widely since at least the 4th century.
Is it important to pretend questions have not been addressed before?
First, since the end of the Apostles, revelation has stopped. What we have now is unfolding of what it already revealed.
Second, as has been said umpty-ump times, councils and new ‘definitions’ are made when called for — or IMHO, sometimes a little AFTER they are called for.
For both Marian dogma there was mounting popular pressure for a declaration, and there were even (we think) miracles. When Mary appears to Katherine Laboure as “conceived without sin,” — a couple of decades before the relevant encyclical then either the muckety mucks have to say the vision is bogus OR they have a little pressure toward saying, “Okay, she was conceived without sin.”
You know very well that the entirety of Scripture will not be covered in 10 years of daily attendance at Mass.
Do you weigh every verse equally or do you concede that there is a hierarchy within Scripture?
(CC=Cowardly Crowd).
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them "their own position of teaching authority." -Second Vatican Council.
"The Tradition that comes from the apostles makes progress in the Church, with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on." - Second Vatican Council.
"The value of the Fathers and Writers is this: that in the aggregate they demonstrate what the Church did and does not yet believe and teach. In the aggregate they provide a witness to the content of Tradition, that Tradition which itself is a vehicle for revelation." -The Faith of the Early Fathers.
"It (Tradition) comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience." - Second Vatican Council.
So Mary's Assumption lay dormant for centuries, until it somehow springs to life in modern times through pious and infallible contemplation?
Chapter and verse, please. Where does the Bible say that?
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.