Posted on 05/17/2008 6:30:09 PM PDT by e.Shubee
Please remove me from your ping list.
It would appear that many of the people discussing the MP3 in question didn’t actually listen to it.
I have listened carefully to what he has said, and I am in 100% agreement with him!
¶ So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, agapao thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I phileo thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, agapao thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I phileo thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, phileo thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, phileo thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I phileo thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
John 21:15-17
Christ: Peter, do you love me more than these?
Peter: You know that I'm fond of you.
Christ: Feed my lambs.
Christ: Peter, do you love me?
Peter: You know that I'm fond of you.
Christ: Feed my sheep.
Christ: Peter, are you fond of me?
Peter: You know all things; you know that I'm fond of you.
Christ: Feed my sheep.
Did you listen to the audio? It was all Scripture.
Who won?
As I recall reading about history in foreign lands, she lost big time!
All things considered, Sweden was quickly becoming a major contender then and probably had much more downstream influence than did she. Charles and his son Gustavus Augustus, with the able assistance of a small army of French engineers and technocrats, soon laid waste virtually the entirity of Europe.
Bloody Mary doesn't hold a candle to that.
So I'm happy to know the link does end up where it said it was going. The title just seemed a bit too provocative given all the "anti-catholic" slurs against Protestants being flung around here lately.
That said, I like the title. 8~)
Sorry, Catholics believe the Bible only as far as it is interpreted for them.
And wishing, as is proper, to impose a restraint in this matter on printers also, who, now without restraint, thinking what pleases them is permitted them, print without the permission of ecclesiastical superiors the books of the Holy Scriptures and the notes and commentaries thereon of all persons indiscriminately, often with the name of the press omitted, often also under a fictitious press-name, and what is worse, without the name of the author, and also indiscreetly have for sale such books printed elsewhere, [this council] decrees and ordains that in the future the Holy Scriptures, especially the old Vulgate Edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible, and that it shall not be lawful for anyone to print or to have printed any books whatsoever dealing with sacred doctrinal mattes without the name of the author, or in the future to sell them, or even to have them in possession, unless they have first been examined and approved by the ordinary, under penalty of anathema and fine prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran.[7] If they be regulars they must in addition to this examination and approval obtain permission also from their own superiors after these have examined the books in accordance with their own statutes. Those who lend or circulate them in manuscript before they have been examined and approved, shall be subject to the same penalties as the printers, and those who have them in their possession or read them, shall, unless they make known the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. - Council of Trent
Wow...this has to be about the most moronic thread I have read in the religion forum. Scrapin’ the bottom of the barrel with this one.
Catholics are Bible-believing Christians.
If this is their thinking it's easy to understand why there was not a big movement to have Bibles printed for everyone to read when it became affordable to do so. IIRC, prior to the printing press and ability to make paper out of linen rags it took about 10 months for a copy to be done by hand. However, Trent was after the printing press had been invented and was becoming widely used.
It isn't a question of being a "Bible-believing" Christian. It who are you going to believe, what you read or what someone else tells you a passage says?
If I might add. They weren't really given that option. They were expected to just believe what they were told. Bibles were still in Latin and those that dared to copy the Bible in the vernacular were persecuted and/or killed. The printing press made it impossible to stop translations into the vernacular.
"tarbaby"
Says him.
I rely on the Holy Spirit. Christ founded the Church, the Holy Spirit protects it from error. You trust your own judgment - or that of your pastor.
All that being said, there is nothing contrary to reason taught by the Church. In fact, the Church has a wealth of discussion and debate - within the context of Truth.
And that's the whole point isn't it? We all trust our own judgment at the end of all things. Catholics are making a judgment that the Church will tell them what to do and what is correct. In the end, they are responsible for that judgment call. If the Pope stated that Mary was the Co-Redempix tomorrow, they would be obligated to believe it simply because the Pope and the Council says it is so. But that is their judgment to believe the "Church". And there is plenty of things contrary to reason and scripture which is taught by the Church-Mary being one of them, purgatory being another, praying to saints another, etc.
Protestants believe they are responsible for making their own choices in judgment based upon how they interpret the word of God. We can listen to the pastor, read books, try to glean information from various sources; but in the end we (hopefully) go back to the word of God and what it states. In the end Protestants do make mistakes, but we must be able to give a good defense of what we believe and why we believe it.
All are responsible for our OWN actions. At the end of time we won't be able to argue that Pope Leo told us purchasing indulgences would get Aunt Myrtle out of purgatory and we believed it to be true.
No question.
Dance.
God would want us to dance.
:-)
"God would want us to dance." [excerpt]
This is another flat out attack on my religion. Why is that acceptable here?
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.