Posted on 07/14/2013 3:02:43 PM PDT by NYer
If obeying rules repulses you so much that you take pleasure in breaking them, you shouldn’t be on the FR?
Nicely put. Effective and tactful.
How is asking,
“what church/congregation”
do you attend a personal attack?
I do not understand why this is such an issue. As a protestant I was only to happy to share my faith with Catholics. I used to invite them to come to church with me.
I am baffled why so many on here are reluctant to share this simple fact.
You are mistaken completely, and appear to desire to be mistaken.
Hislop did painstaking research, all of which is noted in his book, and well beyond attack from the nicolaitans that desire not to be exposed.
Your embrace of nicolaitans and their corruption is getting to be a clear picture.
Quinisext Council (Fifth-Sixth)[sometimes called the "Trullon Synod"] Canon XII:Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us - it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach...But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.
No, frankly I don’t. Not like Ste Therese. :)
I do however know some excellent saints and I am thrilled to say that I have known and worked with them in the past.
“Hislop did painstaking research”
Why then does no one else confirm that Semiaramis was a soprano?
Again - he’s as historically credible as Joseph Smith. Did he ever travel to Mesopotamia, or did he just dig out a few books and dabble?
Dan Brown is the exact same way, and he is popular for the exact same reason. Historical facts get in the way of a good conspiracy! What’s next, freemasons?
Stay baffled.
Where are you getting that from?
Canon III
SINCE our pious and Christian Emperor has addressed this holy and ecumenical council, in order that it might provide for the purity of those who are in the list of the clergy, and who transmit divine things to others, and that they may be blameless ministrants, and worthy of the sacrifice of the great God, who is both Offering and High Priest, a sacrifice apprehended by the intelligence: and that it might cleanse away the pollutions wherewith these have been branded by unlawful marriages: now whereas they of the most holy Roman Church purpose to keep the rule of exact perfection, but those who are under the throne of this heaven-protected and royal city keep that of kindness and consideration, so blending both together as our fathers have done, and as the love of God requires, that neither gentleness fall into licence, nor severity into harshness; especially as the fault of ignorance has reached no small number of men, we decree, that those who are involved in a second marriage, and have been slaves to sin up to the fifteenth of the past month of January, in the past fourth Indiction, the 6109th year, and have not resolved to repent of it, be subjected to canonical deposition: but that they who are involved in this disorder of a second marriage, but before our decree have acknowledged what is fitting, and have cut off their sin, and have put far from them this strange and illegitimate connexion, or they whose wives by second marriage are already dead, or who have turned to repentance of their own accord, having learnt continence, and having quickly forgotten their former iniquities, whether they be presbyters or deacons, these we have determined should cease from all priestly ministrations or exercise, being under punishment for a certain time, but should retain the honour of their seat and station, being satisfied with their seat before the laity and begging with tears from the Lord that the transgression of their ignorance be pardoned them: for unfitting it were that he should bless another who has to tend his own wounds.
‘’’But those who have been married to one wife, if she was a widow, and likewise those who after their ordination have unlawfully entered into one marriage that is, presbyters, and deacons, and subdeacons being debarred for some short time from sacred ministration, and censured, shall be restored again to their proper rank, never advancing to any further rank, their unlawful marriage being openly dissolved.’’’ This we decree to hold good only in the case of those that are involved in the aforesaid
[[again, presbyteros, not episcopai]]
363
faults up to the fifteenth (as was said) of the month of January, of the fourth Indiction, decreeing from the present time, and renewing the Canon which declares, that he who has been joined in two marriages after his baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list; in like manner, that he who has taken a widow, or a divorced person, or a harlot, or a servant, or an actress, cannot be bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, or at all on the sacerdotal list.”
No mention is made of bishops being permitted to keep wives. Only priests + deacons.
You didn’t have a problem when Hislop says that Catholics are followers of Satan? And you only have a problem when Catholics attack his lies?
Odd that!
You can answer all of your triffling questions by looking in a mirror, and examining your own heart.
They reflect your resistance to throwing off the world, as Yeshua demanded. Others have the same resistance to the dismantling of their nicolaitan position of priviledge, Protestant as well as catholic.
No, I’m not baffled, really. People who are quick to attack Catholics and the Catholic church are usually strangely silent when the Catholic queries their faith.
If one were honest, it’s a simple question to answer, but it was never about honesty.
Yeah, didn’t think you could back it up with scripture.
It DOES???
28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure,[a] which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)
34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.
Good ol' Pete!
We can always count on him to be so darn Popelike!
Using that language in a religion forum? How classy. I’ll consider you a cretin unworthy of serious consideration.
I’m sorry. Nobody regards Hislop as authoritative on anything. His conclusion that Semiaramis was married to Nimrod has no corroborating evidence. His conclusion that Nimrod was black has no corroborating evidence. His conclusion that Semiaramis was white has no corroborating evidence. His conclusion that Semiaramis sang as a soprano!, is fanciful nonsense.
And yet, you would have others believe that we should trust the ramblings of a malicious fabricator when it concerns the Catholic church.
But go on. Tell us all how you’d rather believe a fraud than the truth.
I don’t see much point in discussing scripture with a non-trinitarian.
I did not expect, and was actually surprised, that you would post that level of information on a public website for all to see. You were certainly free to turn me down, and well within rights to, had you elected to say "no". While I appreciate your willingness to do you from a religious perspective, IMO it was incredibly foolish given our current government's data-collecting activities.
That said, you still haven't told me what value my own information is to you.
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.