Posted on 06/15/2007 5:33:53 AM PDT by Between the Lines
Frankly, I’m waiting on a response to my post #200. Once I have that response, I’ll respond specifically to your post.
I honestly am used to an environment where people are called on to respect each other’s beliefs, whether one agrees with those beliefs or not. And if one wishes to challenge those beliefs, to make the challenge based upon some degree of propriety and intellectual rigor. Further, where an individual violates the above premises, where it’s acceptable to call that person on the carpet.
I am not used to an environment where one can mock and deride another belief without any semblence of proof or logic. And where the person calling the mocker on the carpet is penalized for doing so.
But if that’s the paradigm here, I guess I’ll either have to live with it or move on to someplace else. I personally think that about 80% of the Religion Forum participants would prefer the latter option, but I don’t like being pushed out of a place. So I just need to learn the rules here so that I can work within them.
You know, I wrote a diatribe against your heretical beliefs and how those beliefs, as exercised on this forum, literally must cause Christ to cringe.
And then I was going to write a diatribe on how my deeply-held beliefs cannot allow me to be as uncharitable as to rant against your deeply-held beliefs.
I erased both diatribes.
I will not sink to the level of diabolical practices that some so-called Christian confessions inspire of their members. I will not hate, no matter how badly I am hated for my beliefs. If others choose to do so, so be it.
It just ain't worth it.
Awww Mark that does not help !
"Rome, in the person of CLEMENT OF ROME, originally received this Epistle. Then followed a period in which it ceased to be received by the Roman churches. Then, in the fourth century, Rome retracted her error. A plain proof she is not unchangeable or infallible. As far as Rome is concerned, the Epistle to the Hebrews was not only lost for three centuries, but never would have been recovered at all but for the Eastern churches; it is therefore a happy thing for Christendom that Rome is not the Catholic Church." A. R. FAUSSET
Mark,
You’ll notice that any darts headed your way from yours truly originate where the recipient has built an argument outside of Scripture and/or in disingenuity. It just so happens that, with so much of its doctrine falling into this bin, the RCC receives a substantial amount of fire.
Facts are facts. And it’s a fact that the RCC has forged a path away from Scriptural Truth for centuries. Its current defenders are helpless in staving off even a mild Scripture-based assault. This is more pronounced since most RCC members don’t know the Bible. The ones who learn either leave the church (as I did), or weave together a tapestry of mistranslation and deception to support their blasphemy.
Any open and unbiased reading of the New Testament should bring you out of darkness and into His marvelous light. Isn’t your eternal soul worth such an effort? Would you carelessly trust it to anyone but yourself? Who has more at stake, eternally, than you? Don’t take my word on it; take God’s Word on it. I suggest you begin with Paul’s letter to the original church at Rome, and then follow with the letters to the Galatians and to the Hebrews.
Bon voyage, bon jour et bon chance!
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia states that the canonicity of Hebrews was questioned at first.
In this formative period the Epistle to the Hebrews did not obtain a firm footing in the Canon of the Universal Church. At Rome it was not yet recognized as canonical, as shown by the Muratorian catalogue of Roman origin; Irenæus probably cites it, but makes no reference to a Pauline origin. Yet it was known at Rome as early as St. Clement, as the latter's epistle attests. The Alexandrian Church admitted it as the work of St. Paul, and canonical. The Montanists favoured it, and the aptness with which vi, 4-8, lent itself to the Montanist and Novatianist rigour was doubtless one reason why it was suspect in the West. Also during this period the excess over the minimal Canon composed of the Gospels and thirteen epistles varied. The seven "Catholic" Epistles (James, Jude, I and II Peter, and the three of John) had not yet been brought into a special group, and, with the possible exception of the three of St. John, remained isolated units, depending for theircanonical strength on variable circumstances. But towards the end of the second century the canonical minimum was enlarged and, besides the Gospels and Pauline Epistles, unalterably embraced Acts, I Peter, I John (to which II and III John were probably attached), and Apocalypse. Thus Hebrews, James, Jude, and II Peter remained hovering outside the precincts of universal canonicity, and the controversy about them and the subsequently disputed Apocalypse form the larger part of the remaining history of the Canon of the New Testament However, at the beginning of the third century the New Testament was formed in the sense that the content of its main divisions, what may be called its essence, was sharply defined and universally received, while all the secondary books were recognized in some Churches. A singular exception to the universality of the above-described substance of the New Testament was the Canon of the primitive East Syrian Church, which did not contain any of the Catholic Epistles or Apocalypse.
Shoot, the NT Canon wasn't set until proclaimed by Pope Damasus I in 374 AD...and was contested in many of the African churches until the Council of Hippo (393).
Mr. Fausset chooses to editorialize on accepted fact in an interesting way, but I'm still not sure why you made that quote. Perhaps you could expound a bit..
Amen. 1Pe.2:9-we are a royal priesthood.
Obviously your church and ECF did not see the book as interpreted thru the church. That was my point
the priest is more than a man, closer to God than mere human beings.
Your repetitive cut and pastes do not address this issue. You have not shown me how a priest is "closer than a mere human being." In fact, you infer that the Catholic Church teaches that there are "human beings" and then priests. What are priests if they are not human beings? The Catholic Church teaches no such thing, notwithstanding your claims to the contrary. If you have a source proving that the Catholic Church teaches that priests are higher than mere human beings, then post it. Otherwise, your claims are either the speculation of the uninformed, or worse, intentional misrepresentations. I hope for your sake it is the former rather than the latter.
And please, in regards to your attempts to twist the words of father Baker into "Catholics believe a priest IS Jesus Christ," thank God Almighty that those reading this page are at least smart enough to read Fr. Baker's comments IN CONTEXT OF his discussion (of the holy sacrifice of the mass). Find me a Catholic theologian that writes that a priest in complete form and spirit IS Jesus Christ. Just one, and not some misquoted Jesuit. I won't hold my breath. Otherwise again, your claims of what the Catholic Church teaches is 100% bull.
And wasn't this a discussion about abuse of our children at the hands of the Protestants? I LOVE the spin and the attempt to keep this solely a Catholic issue when it clearly is not.
St. Jerome's words from the fourth century continue to be so pertinent today and they continue to fall on deaf ears, particularly on these threads.
"Ignorance of Scripture is Ignorance of Christ".
You and your colleagues would be well served to heed the words of St. Peter but that is highly unlikely.
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:15-16
During your particular judgments, don't claim you weren't warned.
Excellent only to those who are easliy deceived. It’s a pity that you too are ignorant of Scripture and history.
"Simply stated, the Catholic priest is another Christ..." "The priest is an alter Christus, another Christ." "Msgr. Josemaria Escriva put it this way: 'What is the identity of the priest? It is the identity of Christ himself.'..." "The Catholic faith teaches that the priest is another Christ, an alter Christus..."
you infer that the Catholic Church teaches that there are "human beings" and then priests.
I don't have to "infer" anything. Baker makes that assertion in black and white...
"Orders produce an ontological or real change in the one ordained. Once consecrated he is no longer a lay person and he is no longer exactly like non-priests."
This essay is pertinent not only for showing us what the RCC teaches, but it gives real insight into how and why a child and even the child's family would more easily fall prey to the sexual advances from a priest than from a regular pedophile.
And this is because the enticing pedophile is "another Christ."
I posted the latin and you still do not believe. Has it occurred to you that it was your church that changed the translation for its own purposes?
There is NO provision for priests in the new church. The priest was a type of Christ and He became both priest and sacrifice.
Put down the false Catholic translation and read with me . "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:" Titus 1:5
Tts 1:5 ¶ For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:
From the latin vulgate
huius rei gratia reliqui te Cretae ut ea quae desunt corrigas et constituas per civitates presbyteros sicut ego tibi disposui Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D.
presbyteros a term of rank or office a) among the Jews
1) members of the great council or Sanhedrin (because in early times the rulers of the people, judges, etc., were selected from elderly men)
2) of those who in separate cities managed public affairs and administered justice
b) among the Christians, those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
Youngs LITERAL GREEK translation agrees with Jerome
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that the things lacking thou mayest arrange, and mayest set down in every city elders, as I did appoint to thee; Robert Young Literal Translation 1862, 1887, 1898
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Latin vulgate
Vulgate et ipse dedit quosdam quidem apostolos quosdam autem prophetas alios vero evangelistas alios autem pastores et doctores Jerome's Latin Vulgate 405 A.D.
No priest there
11 And he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and other some evangelists, and other some pastors and doctors, 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Douay-Rheims Bible
You presume much, Mr. C.
All "history" aside, Scripture is God's Word, His revelation to man. Please enlighten me about how mariology reconciles with Scripture, or purgatory, or idol worship a la RCC "saints", or its papacy and priesthood, or many other false, non-Scriptural doctrines. Please help me, O Wise One, since I am devoid of understanding.
Amen.
Don't forget Rev.17!
Um, made a comment without all the facts, but I’ll forgive you.
I’ve sat at tables with victims. Also seen endless people victimized by the Archdiocese of Boston.
From the legitimately abused to the falsely accused.
A good number of these folks are still be abused by the Archdiocese, but now out of the limelight, because O’Malley has hoodwinked the “Survivor Community” and the little Mrs. McGillicuddy who gives $5 from her SS check each month to pay 250k salaries. Or for his $300 sandals and expensive dinners at Papparazzi in Copley Square.
I read the reviews to of this when it came out, not interested.
Sorry, I was not aware I had
It is a subtle difference, but the former tends to cause resentments and/or flame wars.
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.