Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Good example. "Apostolic constitution" is another (APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS, for example, a 2009 document).
This comment wins the prize for today!
Hello Reggie. Still skewering the loose arguments, I see.
hmmm... why? Do you as a unitarian believe in the Trinity? Or not?
Hello Mark. Not really. It's not possible to have a sensible "debate" with one who equates the fake "Apostolic Canons" and the authentic "Apostles/Apostolic Creed".
The word “pseudo” is often used to qualify instances of unstated authorship in order to distingush them from literal authroship. We have, for example, “Pseudo-Chrysostom”. That is someone whose writings were attributed to St. John Chrysostom but he was not him. This in no way diminishes the value of the writing itself; Pseudo-Chrysostom, despite his unknown identity, is frequently and admiringly excerpted in Caten Aurea, for example. You can ascertain that for yourself by reading at random at the URL which is near my signature.
If you wish to defend pious lies as "truth" that is your prerogative. I prefer facts.
It helps to be familiar with the terminology of the field in which you attempt to opine.
On this we agree. You can begin with learning the vast difference between "The Code Of Canon Law" and the Canons, real or fake, of a Church Council and/or the imaginary "Apostolic Canons".
If you have in mind some distinction between a council promulgating canons for people to obey and Canon Law, please explain what the distinction is. As you see from the documents I showed you, interference across bishoprics was against the canons in the Early Church.
The Code Of Canon Law Code Of Canon Law is a legal set of laws binding (though confusing and often misinterpreted) on the entire Church.
Some Canons of recognized Ecumenical Councils are accepted as "Infallible" while others, especially of local and obscure Councils are possibly interesting but certainly not binding on the entire Church.
The single thing the two have in common is the word "Canon".
There is no "lie". The word "pseudo" is an indication that the "Apostolic" in the title needs to be understood "In the spirit of the Apostles", just like recent "Apostolic constitution" is to be understood, and just like quite ancient "Apostolic Creed" is to be understood. In either case there is no attempt to pretend the "apostolic" document is written by the apostles, and so no fraud and no lie.
Looking for lies? Look no further than the evil products of the so-called reformation, starting with the two idiotic solas, sola fide and sola scriptura. To pretend that they exist in the gospel would really constitute a lie.
Some Canons of recognized Ecumenical Councils are accepted as "Infallible" while others, especially of local and obscure Councils are possibly interesting but certainly not binding on the entire Church
Well, of note here is that those canons that are binding can be referred to as canon law even though the current Canon Law was codified (on the basis of pre-existing laws) not that long ago. Second, it is the practice of the Church to promulgate canons when a controversy exists, and otherwise stick to already established custom. So, episcopal sovereignty does not start when a canon is promulgated, but rather if there is a canon about it then it is a reflection of the earlier custom. And so a letter from one bishop to another urging a bishop to reinstate some priests he defrocked would be ordinarily a violation of episcopal sovereignty and not possible as a "pastoral letter" as you claimed. It is therefore, an evidence of papal authority exercised by Pope St. Clement.
We must all educate the next generation - those who will replace us in our stead in the world. If we fail, then those who come after us will in all probability fail as well. It is really up to us.
Rubbish! The so-called Apostolic Constirutions were a collection of documents written in the 4th century which were purported to be written by the Apostles. They were obviously a lie, a forgery, pseudo, false, whatever you want to call it but please don't insult me by pretending "In either case there is no attempt to pretend the "apostolic" document is written by the apostles, and so no fraud and no lie.".
Are you playing a game by saying "there is no attempt..."? By quoting from the "Apostolic Constitutions" you are perpetuating a lie. It's about time to begin playing it straight.
Will your next defense be for the Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals and claim they must be understood in the spirit of....whatever?
Looking for lies? Look no further than the evil products of the so-called reformation, starting with the two idiotic solas, sola fide and sola scriptura. To pretend that they exist in the gospel would really constitute a lie.
Very poor attempt at deflection. I'll not bite.
Well, of note here is that those canons that are binding can be referred to as canon law even though the current Canon Law was codified (on the basis of pre-existing laws) not that long ago. Second, it is the practice of the Church to promulgate canons when a controversy exists, and otherwise stick to already established custom. So, episcopal sovereignty does not start when a canon is promulgated, but rather if there is a canon about it then it is a reflection of the earlier custom. And so a letter from one bishop to another urging a bishop to reinstate some priests he defrocked would be ordinarily a violation of episcopal sovereignty and not possible as a "pastoral letter" as you claimed. It is therefore, an evidence of papal authority exercised by Pope St. Clement.
The above is meaningless doubletalk and a pitiful display of lack of understanding.
I have no further interest in wasting my time with one who uses many words to say nothing of value.
They end up arguing nonsense. They can't keep a thought straight or argue a point to any conclusion. They deflect, dissemble and ignore.
Funny thing is, all they have to do is open their Bible and read it, praying always for the Holy Spirit to guide them.
That they don't condemns them.
Not any more than a recent Apostolic Constitution, or Apostle's Creed are purported to be written by the Apostles. We are apostolic church. Everything we do is apostolic.
meaningless doubletalk
Canons are canons. The Church had them since the decisions of the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) were promulgated. If you have any questions, please ask them, and there is no need to get cross with me.
I'm not cross, simply tired of the meaningless blather. I suggest you ask a knowledgeable person in your Church to tell you the difference between a "canon" of any Church Council and the "Code Of Canon Law".
While you are at it you could also ask how a 155mm Howitzer meets your definition "Canons are canons." You might be surprised to learn that there are different types of "canon".
Canon law is the body of laws and regulations made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members.
The difference indeed exists between the Canon Law of 1917, of 1983, the earlier Liber Extra (1234), and Canon Law in general. The Canon Law in general is as old as the Church.
A howitzer is a kind of cannon (note spelling). The Canon Law of 1983 is a kind of Canon Law. When discussing the sovereignty of bishops, I was making a reference to Canon Law in general, not any particular codification of it.
My mistake. My example of a howitzer as a "canon" was in error. May I use old age as an excuse?
In any event, using a canon of a forged document as "proof" of anything is proof of nothing.
As I explained a few times already, to call a document “apostolic” does not constitute a forgery.
OK, I understand your willingness to quote from a work of fiction such as the Apostolic Constitutions to justify a very imaginative definition of a Church Canon.
And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.
Do you still wish to defend the following?
And as I explained a few times already, to call a portion of a fictional book, with the title of "Apostolic Constitution", a "canon" does not make it valid.
Do you still wish to defend the following?
Thank you for all your good and Scriptural illustrations of how Rome follows the doctrines of men.
Fictitious doctrines of men.
There is nothing fictional or phony in it. Canons 35 and 36 describe what the Church considered law in 400 AD. Therefore, it is still law.
Sad to say, I can't accept you as an authority on the subject. Perhaps you can provide an official Catholic Church position on the subject of the authenticity of the "Apostolic Constitutions".
Until then consider the subject closed.
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.