Posted on 08/04/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by NYer
Just a few days ago, I acquired my own copy of a book I remember from childhood (not, alas, from Catholic school): the silver jubilee edition of My Catholic Faith, by Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D. (My Mission House, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1961). Bishop Morrow served as the Bishop of the Diocese of Krishnagar, India, from 1939 to 1969; his book originally came out in 1936. My Catholic Faith is a concise summary of the Faith and is divided into three parts: What to Believe; What to Do; and Means of Grace. This worthy book unfortunately appears no longer to be in print, and was one of the many treasures swept out into the sea of oblivion by the flood of modernism that followed Vatican II. Sadly, many of the devotions, ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements that it describes were also swept away and are now foreign to most Latin Rite Catholics; but, thanks to our current Holy Father, they are beginning to come back. If you can find a copy on Amazon or from a used book seller, My Catholic Faith is a good place to learn about and rekindle a love for these once-common features of Catholic life.
Name the current twelve ...
Who said anything about there being only 12? There are currently 5200+ Bishops of the Catholic Church world wide.
Peace be with you
I'm really only interested in those 12 who can trace their succession to the first apostles.
All Bishops and through them all Priests and Deacons can trace their succession to the Apostles. I do not, however, believe that any amount of information provided will convince those who do not want it to be so.
"“To one who has faith, no proof is necessary. To one without faith, no proof is possible.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
Peace be with you
Which Greek Lexicon would that be? (Note: You wouldn't be the first "non-Roman" to not know that most lexicons and concordances used in Protestant apologetics are highly flawed, deriving their Greek meanings from the KJV interpretations rather than beginning with the Koine Greek meanings.)
Peace be with you
How about you show me a Greek Lexicon that says otherwise and prove yourself?
I’ll see you one and raise you six more:
1) Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon “places 1 Cor. 3:15 as the example of where zemioo has the meaning of ‘be punished’”;
2) Gerhard Kittel’s, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 299:
1.a. Disadvantage may take the form of monetary or material "loss" or "damage." b. It may also be moral or spiritual in the sense of "hurt" or "ruin," with a subjective nuance of "unpleasantness”;
. . . The same sense [1.b.] is probable (rather than "penalty") in 1 Cor. 3:15 in contrast to the reward of v. 14. What is at issue is "hurt" or "loss" in a general sense, not in a financial sense or as loss of salvation;
3) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, gives the meaning of zemioo as “generally, to punish”;
4) Louw-Nida’s Greek-English Lexicon, the “first, or primary, definition of zemioomai in 1 Cor. 3:15 is to‘suffer punishment;’”
5) Strong’s Greek Dictionary (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2210.htm) states the following definition of zemioo, “From zemia; to injure, i.e. (reflexively or passively) to experience detriment; be cast away, receive damage, lose, suffer loss”;
6) Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977, word #2210, p. 272) defines zemioo in this passage as "to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss”;
7) UBS Greek Dictionary states “the meaning of ‘be punished’ is the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 3:15.
Peace be with you
"“To one who has faith, no proof is necessary. To one without faith, no proof is possible.” - St. Thomas Aquinas
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" - Carl Sagan, who is now a believer in Jesus Christ.
What an utterly ridiculous assertion.
Perhaps you could enlighten me on your level of training in Catholic doctrine; who you trained under, where, when, etc. so that I can determine if you are maleducated or simply uneducated in this field. I find it is usually one of these two cases when a non-Catholic assumes a position of authority in arguing against and contradicting educated Catholics on the real teachings and meanings of Church doctrine.
Does this change of attack mean you you have conceded the point on the real meaning of zemiothesetai?
Peace be with you
Are you asserting that my seven corroborating sources are ridiculous?
Peace be with you
I read it! Great book!
Here is where you have made a subtle exegetical blunder with the language.
If you look at every occurance in the NT of this word and its various forms, you would have seen that this word ONLY occurs in the passive voice in the NT. Therefore, you should be looking at the sections in the lexicon that show the definition when the passive voice is used. With this critical information, the lexicon would offer its meaning as "to suffer loss, to forfeit something."
Baur, Gingrich, et. al. have clearly documented usage of this word outside the NT; the sub-title of their combined lexicon affirms this. But the NT usage is restricted to the passive voice.
For example, Matt. 16:26, "what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but ζημιωθη his soul?"
The context clearly indicates the loss of something previously possessed, not the punishment of the soul ... but its complete loss. All the other occurances are the same, passive voice, meaning is clearly "loose something that you could have had, or loose something that you previously had."
Similarly with Mark 8:36, Luke 9:25, 2 Cor. 7:9, and Phil. 3:8. All passive voice, like 1 Cor. 3:15, all meaning "to loose something."
Are you asserting that my seven corroborating sources are ridiculous?
No, I'm asserting that with proper care, these resources can guide you to the correct exegetical understanding of the passage in question ... which, unfortunately, has eluded you to date.
I made no blunder because I do not rely upon forensic exegesis to reshape what Tradition already confirms.
The concept of purgation was widely known throughout the first century Mediterranean. The process of purgation was used in food preparation (i.e.; snails were purged before cooking) Medicine ( i.e.; blood letting induced vomiting, sweating, etc.), population control and even criminal and punishment. It was seen as both cleansing and redemptive. The transition of the soul of a sinner from a condition of sin to a fully cleansed state suitable for entry into heaven was considered a purgation. Purgatory was merely that state of being where/when purgation occurred. The Church never described it as a place.
By the way, it really is silly for Protestants to take a lawyerly approach to the development of the language used to refer to the new ideas of Revelation and try to link the inception of the idea to the branding of it.
Peace be with you.
I have to tell you, its frustrating to have a catholic try to argue from the text, then when someone comes around and challenges RCC exegetical conclusions, they just sweep the analysis under the rug of sacred tradition. Your attempt to mold the text to make it say what you want it to say at least tells me that you have some desire to follow the Biblical text, for that you should be commended.
But when you appeal to tradition to justify what is clearly in contradiction to scripture, you are doing just what the leaders and religious people of Jesus' day did.
Matthew 15:1 Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3 And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Mat 15:1 NAS)
He had harsh words for them ...
And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Mat 15:6 NAS)
Do you understand what it means to invalidate the Word of God? It means "to make it have no effect." By adhering to your traditions you are making the word of God to have no effect in your life.
I realize you have much invested in your religion, perhaps your whole family, friends, your spouse. But if that investment is in the wrong thing, built upon the wrong authority, arrived at through the wrong beliefs ... what will it profit you?
Both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are from the same well-spring and coequally form the deposit of Faith. When it appears that to you that they contradict one another your interpretations of one or both are in error.
Peace be with you
Here is the usage of “Zemioo” within the New Testament. Where Zemioo is used the word is bracketed:
“Mt 16:26 -
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and [lose] his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?”
Mark 8:36
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and [lose] his own soul?
Lu 9:25
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and [lose] himself, or be cast away?
2Co 7:9
NowI rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might [receive damage] by us in nothing.
Php 3:8
Yea doubtless, and I count all things but [loss] for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the [loss] of all things, and do count them but dung, thatI may win Christ,
(In this one, Zemia is translated as the first loss, while Zemioo is the latter.)
Zemia, which is a noun form, is used here:
Ac 27:10
And said unto them, Sirs,I perceive that this voyage will be with hurt and much [damage], not only of the lading and ship, but also of our lives.
Ac 27:21
But after long abstinence Paul stood forth in the midst of them, and said, Sirs, ye should have hearkened unto me, and not have loosed from Crete, and to have gained this harm and [loss].
Php 3:7 -
But what things were gain to me, those I counted [loss] for Christ.
Now, let’s finally compare with 1 Cor 3:15
1Co 3:15 If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
It says “If... any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss:” He suffers “loss” if his works are burned.
In every usage given, the word Zemioo or its relatives is used to refer to a financial or a physical loss on persons or things belonging to persons. It is never used to say “to be punished” which is what your original claim was, though you changed that in your post.
You would have us believe that this scripture reads “if any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer punishment (to be punished).” However, the loss is obviously of his “works” that are burned, which fits with the pattern of its usage in all the other scriptures. It does not say that he will be punished, as you fantasize.
“1) Walter Bauer’s Greek-English Lexicon “places 1 Cor. 3:15 as the example of where zemioo has the meaning of ‘be punished’”;
2) Gerhard Kittel’s, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, translated and abridged by Geoffrey W. Bromley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, p. 299:”
I notice you do not quote the actual relevant section in those books on the word. Have you read these Lexicons? I tried searching to see the entire quote for myself but had no access to it. In the one you do quote, it does not say “to be punished.” It only reiterates what I have just told you.
“3) Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, gives the meaning of zemioo as “generally, to punish”;”
Can we see why Liddell and Scott make this claim, even though the word, generally, refers to loss,damage and so on and so forth and not “to punish?” I tried searching, and again it is not something I have access too. There was a 1883 edition, but it would not open and, secondly, it had no search feature with what little did open.
“5) Strong’s Greek Dictionary (http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2210.htm) states the following definition of zemioo, “From zemia; to injure, i.e. (reflexively or passively) to experience detriment; be cast away, receive damage, lose, suffer loss””
So Strong’s Greek Dictionary agrees with me and not with you.
“6) Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1977, word #2210, p. 272) defines zemioo in this passage as “to sustain damage, to receive injury, suffer loss”;”
Another one that agrees with me. I think you’ve sniffed so much Popery that you’ve forgotten your original argument. Popery, like crack, it’s a hell of a thing.
“7) UBS Greek Dictionary states “the meaning of ‘be punished’ is the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 3:15.”
Does it say the meaning of the entire sentence is “to be punished?” Does it mean the word, in just that one instance, means “to be punished”? We can’t know, since again it is not a Lexicon you bothered to quote in its entirety and, apparently, is another one I can’t access without paying 69.99 for.
What does the link say that should be considered a "forgery"? Are you saying that the common knowledge that the Decretals of the Pseudo-Isidore ARE forgeries is "trash"? Better tell the good folks at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm, because they readily admit it happened. They say:
You can read more about this scandalous "wool" that got pulled over MANY eyes - including Thomas Aquinas - at the link.
As to Cyprian's comments that you claim prove the primacy of the Pope of Rome, I direct you to http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/cyprian.php, where we learn:
I do not believe the Roman Catholic Church has history on her side to prove that the Pope of Rome, as the successor of St. Peter and head over all Christendom, has always been a tenet held by the Christian community. That there HAVE been numerous splits and dissension from such a concept is indisputable and the false Decretals only prove that some people will stop at nothing to insist it is true - even to deceit and blatant forgery all in the name of Christ.
AMEN! Scripture is SO clear that we do not earn or merit salvation by anything we do but by the unmerited, unearned, undeserved GRACE of Almighty God. If we could be saved by our own good works or human perfection, then Jesus Christ died in vain. But, praise the Lord, when we were YET sinners, Christ died for us. And the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from ALL sin. When we by faith receive Him, believe on Him, accept Him, we are made children of God who will never be cast out, lost or plucked from His hands.
It amazes me when anyone sneers at or mocks the truth that we are saved by grace THROUGH faith and NOT of ourselves. It is like tossing God's gift back in His face with a curt, "Thanks, but I can do it myself!". There is obviously a spiritual blindness that comes over some people that keeps them from seeing just how destitute and without hope we all are without Christ. We love Him because He FIRST loved us.
Thank you for your stand for the truth of the Gospel.
“I recall that particular episode when it aired on EWTN. She has the most remarkable gift of simplifying the complex. When it comes to the apostles, she brings them to life by reminding us of their humble origins and the daunting task entrusted to them. Have you read Raymond Arroyo’s book, “Mother Angelica, the Remarkable Story of a Nun”?”
~ ~ ~
Thank you so much for posting Mother Angelica’s pic. It makes you smile to see her again. She named other outstanding qualities about Peter besides the two posted and proof from Scripture to show they are true.
I gave a different book by Raymond Arroyo about her to my sister, I have not read the one you mentioned. Humorous, Raymond has told the story of how Mother Angelica hired him, she sure had a way and always, God’s grace.
You know me and “private revelation”, Mother Angelica
didn’t believe all was revealed in the 3rd Secret of Fatima.
To me, the version the Vatican released is about another Holy Father, maybe Pope Benedict XVI not beloved Pope John Paul II. And, Mother Angelica believes in Garabandal.
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.