!HALLELUJAH!
!HALLELUJAH!
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/23/2011 7:05:41 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Old scandal article |
Posted on 02/08/2011 7:12:21 AM PST by Gamecock
HINDUS HAVE applauded Pope Benedict for including verse from ancient Hindu scripture Upanishads in the Good Friday Meditations and Prayers led by him at Roman Colosseum.
Acclaimed Hindu statesman Rajan Zed, in a statement in Nevada (USA) today, said that it was a remarkable gesture from Pope and invited him to study more ancient Hindu scriptures, which were very rich in philosophical thought. He or other Hindu scholars would gladly provide the help and resources in this regard, if asked, Zed added.
Zed, who is president of Universal Society of Hinduism, also commended His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI for inclusion of a verse from India’s Nobel Laureate Rabindranath Tagore’s Gitanjali and reference to peace icon Mahatma Gandhi in these prayers.
This year’s 'Way of the Cross at the Colesseum' Meditations and Prayers on Good Friday, led by Pope, included well-known verse from Brahadaranyakopanishad (“Lead me from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light, from death to immortality”), line from Tagore’s Gitanjali (“Give me the strength to make my love fruitful in service”) and reference to Mahatma Gandhi.
Rajan Zed stressed that all religions should work together for a just and peaceful world. Dialogue would bring us mutual enrichment, he added.
Pope Benedict heads the Roman Catholic Church, which is the largest of the Christian denominations. Hinduism, oldest and third largest religion of the world, has about one billion adherents and moksha (liberation) is its ultimate goal.
That, sir, will leave a BIG mark.
:D
Hoss
Sure, Just FReepmail me with your bank account number and I’ll direct deposit it for you.
Honest.....
;)
There's an endless “baiting” of Catholics here, with no real intention of dialog. I don't take the bait anymore, but let the Truth stand on its own merit and leave it at that. There are many lurkers here with good hearts who are searching for it.
The same can be said of the protestant position correcting the error of the RCC in that same verse. Posted many, many times and ignored.
Just like in this post
Not...going...to...take...the...bait.
Read these and enjoy! God bless...
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
Early Church Fathers on the Papacy:
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
Eastern Fathers and the Primacy of Peter:
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2007/sray_stpeterprimacy_apr07.asp
St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
Peter’s Primacy in Scripture:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
Peter the Rock:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/04/petros_vs_petra.html
Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars:
http://catholicity.elcore.net/SimonIsTheRock.html
I am afraid that you are mistaken. Heresy will do that to one. It is good that those who fall into heresy these days can claim true ignorance as they have been fed such a steady diet of lies they don’t even taste the toxins in the dish.
I don’t know about you but I am a spirit and a body. My spirit/soul was created to be eternal. When Christ comes again my body will be resurrected and join my spirit. This new body will glorify God for all eternity. Should I die before our Savior comes in judgment (universal judgment on the whole world) my spirit will go where Christ’s paticular judgment places it.
But I will not be just a rotting corpse. I will be alive with Christ with or without a resurrected body. That is what God has promised. God is a God of life not of corpses.
Look up the meaning of the word prayer. Modern Protestant vocabulary is very limited and forgets that word usage changes over time. Prayer simply means petition. I suppose you would take exception to the BCP marriage service and the line “With my body, I thee worship.” The Church Eastern and Western existed long before you (collective you) decided you alone had all the answers to the meaning of Scripture. Your arrogance would amuse if it did not lead so many into possible damnation.
I am done with the lies and malicious falsehoods that define these threads. You don’t stoop to that level, so please know I am not making that claim against you when I write that.
After reading the first few hundred responses to this post, I gave up.
It makes no difference to the FRy them crowd what any Catholic says.
I have determined that for my own serenity, I must choose my battles very carefully here and there is a growing list of members of the FRy them crowd with whom I will not engage at all.
It takes incredible strength of will when I read something posted and want so badly to respond, but I remind myself that the poster is obstinate in his/her ignorance and hatred and that responding to him/her is futile.
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.” —Stuart Chase
You must not have read the same fathers I have. Please cite the fathers who do not have a Catholic/Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist.
They do bray on, don’t they?
LOL. I remember spending untold hours on some thread with over 10,000 posts, simply presenting the Catholic teaching on Mary as Mother of God. The same five or six posters would simply ignore the posts and come back with such inane things as “You Catholics believe that Mary preexisted the Trinity”, or some similar nonsense. They were simply repeating the same silly accusations that were already refuted several thousand times over in hundreds of posts over the last ten years.
At that point, I had enough.
Actually it is worse than braying. There is a rather crude phrase to describe it, but of course, I won’t use it here.
I respond to someone when I read a question or thought that I find interesting and that I have never come across before.
I am in a conversation on another thread with someone who has been respectful for the most part and it has been a conversation that has been a benefit to me.
How so? I had to reread several passages from the Bible to form my response to him/her and found in doing so a small verse that at first seems innocuous on its face.
But, knowing that in Scripture every word, every verse has something to teach us, it turned out to be a few words that so illuminated something else that I was excited to have seen it in a new light.
That is the best I can ever hope for here in the FR religion forums.
And if by some chance another seeker should learn from me, then that is just icing on the cake.
Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ. - Augustine - A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).
In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. - Augustine, The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. - Augustine - John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.
A Catholic church historian (not even protestant mind you):
“Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare… But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy…” -Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.
Another CATHOLIC historian:
All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors.” -J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp.73-74.
Therefore the above begs the question:
Why are RCC apologists throwing out this misleading information?
In my opinion, (and I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here) these apologists are probably not TRYING to be purposefully deceptive, but probably picking up patristic works such as "Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers," turning to the Doctrinal Index, and reading citations of the early fathers that are without context.
Context is everything ;)
LOL! This brought back a fond memory. During my infantry training we had an individual who was the classic screw-up. Our Drill Sergrants had a way of identifying him to every Instructor we had during the entire 9 weeks of training.
It was customary that following any instruction to "Take Your Seats!" we would enmasse announce our company and its motto before sitting. The Screw-up remained on his feet and and shouted solo "Right on, right on, right on, and Amen!" before sitting, singling him out for "special attention" during the session.....ironic isn't it.
Well isn’t that special.
They don't deviate. It is just like the harmony of the Scripture. If you believe that the words of St. Paul are something other than subservient to and in support of the Synoptic Gospels the error is yours, not Scripture's. If that is what you perceive that the doctrines and dogma of the Church deviate then your understanding of Scripture or the Catechisms, creeds, Sacraments and decrees of the Magisterisum is what is flawed.
“We also know it well enough to know that it wasn’t found in Matthew 5.”
Why would God leave Scriptural interpretation up to people who can’t even do basic reading comprehension.
The Verse, which none of you Protestants could find was in Matthew 16, which is what was stated.
Learn to read better.
“The rock is Christ, not Peter.”
This is a challenge somewhat harder to refute, as it is at least partially true. Yes, the foundation of the Church is Christ (because the Church is Jesus Christ’s bride and His mystical body) and Christ is described as a rock a number of times in Scripture.
This is an example of the “either / or” understanding of Christianity common to many Protestants. Because Christ is described as a rock, Peter cannot be. Because Christ is the foundation of the Church, Peter cannot be. They fail to understand that Christianity is not “either / or” but “both / and”.
Refuting this claim should begin with the “either / or” apologetic tactics. Apologists should also make use of the extensive Scriptural and non-Scriptural support for Petrine Primacy other than Matthew 16:18. Remember, Scripture should not be read in isolation.
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4a.htm
“Either/Or”:
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/1d.htm
Other Scriptural Evidence for Petrine Primacy:
http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/4b.htm
A Response to the “Top 10 Reasons why Peter Isn’t the Rock”
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/rock.htm
“All, your study for this weeks is to read the Gospel of Matthew. 5 points for the first to cite me the verse regarding Peter being given the keys to heaven and the power to”
LOL, the period stops the thought....”read the Gospel of Matthew. “5 points for the...”
I’m horrible at grammar, but c’mon....learn how to use a “period”...yeesh.
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.