Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Study: Over Half of South Jersey's Catholics Believe That Jesus Sinned
Christian Post ^ | 05/07/2012 | Jeff Schapiro

Posted on 05/07/2012 2:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

Although the sinless life of Jesus Christ is a foundational tenet of the Christian faith, a study recently released by the Diocese of Camden found that 60 percent of practicing Catholics in southern New Jersey believe Jesus sinned during his time on Earth.

"The number of Catholics who have a very flawed, a seriously flawed, understanding of who Jesus is, that's troublesome," Bishop Joseph Galante of the Diocese of Camden said during a press conference, USA Today reports. "We've got to re-focus on how we teach and inform people. Jesus is the foundation of who we are as Catholics."

The study was commissioned by the diocese with the hope that the results would help it to better evangelize the communities it serves. The study was conducted by the Barna Group, a Ventura, Calif.-based research organization, which surveyed 612 adults living in the six New Jersey counties within the diocese.

Of those surveyed, 34 percent identified themselves as Catholic, but there are some discrepancies between what the church teaches and what some of them believe.

For example, the study showed that four out of ten of these Catholics disagree with the idea that sex should be reserved solely for marriage. While 38 percent of the total residents living within the Camden Diocese agree strongly with the idea that the Bible is "totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches," only 28 percent of Catholics in the diocese believe the same.

Another major issue Galante discussed during the press conference was the high number of Catholics in his diocese who simply don't attend Mass. One-third of lapsed Catholics said they have other priorities or are too busy to attend, while others said they just aren't interested in church (27 percent).

"What intrigued me in particular was the high number of people who don't attend Mass simply because they have other priorities," said Galante.

"One of the things we need to do is emphasize that worship time can also be part of family time as well. These findings are both troubling and a challenge as we begin to deepen our evangelization efforts."

Peter Feuerherd, director of communications for the Diocese of Camden, told The Christian Post on Monday that another thing that struck him from the study was the low percentage of Catholics who invite others to church. The study found that Catholics (33 percent) were half as likely as Protestants (66 percent) to invite someone to visit their church.

"I find that the 'ask' is so important, and Catholics are not in the habit of the 'ask.' Even our parishes are not in the habit of the ask," said Feuerherd.

He also indicated that a major issue all churches have to deal with is the tendency for people to want to always be productive in the American culture. Those who don't take time off from work on the weekends are honored in our society, he says, and other "distractions" like youth sporting events and various forms of entertainment can sometimes take away from church attendance.

"I think we have lost ... the idea that whatever that Sabbath day is, it is valuable. It's important that people have it," he said.

Other interesting findings from the study:

-Of the Catholics surveyed, 38 percent favor attending church only on holidays.

-Among all of the adults surveyed, 51 percent said churches are "too involved" in opposing abortion or same-sex marriage.

-Nine out of ten (89 percent) adults said they know about the clergy abuse scandals that have occurred within the Catholic Church. Among those who are aware of the scandals, 89 percent consider it a "major issue."

-Only 18 percent of Catholics strongly agree that it is their personal responsibility to share their religious beliefs with others, as compared to 40 percent of Protestants and 36 percent of people who believe in non-Christian faiths.


TOPICS: Catholic; Current Events; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; catholics; jesus; sin; southjersey
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-274 last
To: SeekAndFind
That URL site. It's system is flawed. You do not get the unvarnished original writings. I have software on a Win7 virtual machine for Mac that's another computer. It will give just the literal text. I will eventually get back but Busy with other things right now.

. I can use it as a concordance for key words but not phrases in any early church fathers writings. I do not know how perfect but pretty good when I last used it.

Cheers!

251 posted on 05/14/2012 12:38:51 PM PDT by johngrace (I am a 1 John 4! Christian- declared at every Sunday Mass , Divine Mercy and Rosary prayers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"OK, It is the NAB, but where in the text does it say that Peter made the final judgment?"

I always find it strange to discuss this with Sola Scriptura Protestants who, because of the necessity to diminish St. Peter in defense of the Reformation, go to extremes to find things that are not in the Scriptures and to exclude things that are in the Scriptures to support their case. If you render the entire narrative of the First Council of Jerusalem you will have no choice but to concede St. Peter’s ”Petrine” role in the council.

First we have to understand the timing or location of the council was not random or arbitrary. It was in Jerusalem because St. Peter was in Jerusalem in 49 AD. Recall St. Peter had literally disappeared from Acts in chapter 12 after escaping prison and fleeing Jerusalem in 42 AD. St. Peter was present in Jerusalem because the Jews had been expelled from Rome in 49 AD (the same year as the Council). St. Peter was present as the Bishop of Rome and “In Persona Christi Capitas”, which was the role of the bishop who spoke on behalf of the entire church. St. James had a role because he was the bishop of Jerusalem and was the head of the Jewish faction. It was this Jewish faction who were described in Acts 15:1-2 as "Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.” The some who had come down from Judea were certainly not St. Paul and Barnabas, now were they St. Peter, they were from James’ flock.

St. Peter began the discussion by relating that he had baptized the first gentiles, the Centurion Cornelius and his entourage, at Caesarea at the instruction of the Holy Spirit. Then after much debate among the bishops and presbyters the Scripture says St. Peter stood up and the room fell silent indicating that it was St. Peter who had the authority to cut off debate. The Greek word used (esigese) indicates that the room remained silent, reinforcing his authority. St. James then gave his judgment to his followers that St. Peter was right when he says; “It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to stop troubling the gentiles.” "Then the Apostles and presbyters, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. This is the letter delivered by them...". It was St. Peter acting “In Persona Christi Capitas” that represented the whole Church.

252 posted on 05/14/2012 1:23:22 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: If you render the entire narrative of the First Council of Jerusalem you will have no choice but to concede St. Peter’s ”Petrine” role in the council.

___________________________________________

I have never ( and I don’t think other Protestants who are knowledegable) have ever denied the Petrine role in the council. Read my posts and you should and ought to clearly see that I acknowledged his role. I have not diminished ( your words not mine ) his role.

My beef is your “READING INTO” the text to insist that he had some supreme hierarchical role and the others (like Paul and James) a lesser role in the council.

I do not infer that from the text at all.

If the Papacy is such an important position in the Council of Jerusalem I would have expected this to be highlighted by Luke in this passage. That it is not simply shows that it is NOT what you want it to be.

RE: St. Peter stood up and the room fell silent indicating that it was St. Peter who had the authority to cut off debate

I would imagine that the room fell silent when Peter spoke ( although the text does not say that — read it again ).

The text does say that the room fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

If the room fell silent when Peter spoke, THEY DID TOO when Paul and Barnabas spoke. Which indicates ( as Paul himself tells us in his letter to the Corinthians ) that Paul IS NOT INFERIOR to any of the eminent Apostles in the council, certainly not to Peter.

Whatever the case is, there is NO INDICATION that Paul and Barnabas’ roles were any less important or unequal with Peter’s in the council.

The Acts 15 text does not infer or say it.

To insist that Peter’s role was supreme and Paul and Barnabas’ role was inferior is NOT SUPPORTED by the text. You will have to ASSUME IT and then READ INTO the text to make this argument and that is EXACTLY what you did.

RE: . St. James then gave his judgment to his followers that St. Peter was right when he says; “It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to stop troubling the gentiles.” “Then the Apostles and presbyters, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WHOLE CHURCH, decided to choose representatives and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. This is the letter delivered by them...”. It was St. Peter acting “In Persona Christi Capitas” that represented the whole Church.

You see the problem here? You are again assuming that Peter alone acted “In Persona Christi Capitas” and James and the rest are then neglected.

In fact, James COMPARED what Peter said to the SUPREME AUTHORITY -— God’s word (see vs 15-18) before making his judgment.

He said “The words of the prophets are in agreement with this”. In other words, Peter’s words had to be CAREFULLY COMPARED with God’s already revealed word before a final decision was made and THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD BE DOING WHEN A BISHOP, POPE or AN ANGEL FOR THAT MATTER TELLS US TO BELIEVE SOMETHING.

The conclusion I get from this is -— The ENTIRE GROUP under the guidance of the Holy Spirit acted “In Persona Christi Capitas”.


253 posted on 05/14/2012 2:29:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"I would imagine that the room fell silent when Peter spoke ( although the text does not say that — read it again ).

The text does say that the room fell silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

It takes a basic knowledge of idiomatic Greek and the procedural norms of the ekklesia to fully appreciate what is written. We are dealing with two Greek words for silence. Verse 12 describes what happened before St. Paul and St. Barnabas were recognized to address it's council. The word used is "esigese". This is the past tense aorist usage, meaning that the assembly became and remained silent after St. Peter's address. Scripture is very clear that indeed, after St. Peter speaks, all debate stops. The matter had been settled. In verse 13 the verb used is "sigesai". This is the infinitive aorist: meaning only that Paul and Barnabas had finished talking.

St. Peter was clearly identified as a special Apostle by Jesus. He was the one who was given a new name. He was the one who was always mentioned first by all of the Gospel writers. He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given. I cannot ignore all of that so that I have an open mind to Protestant eisegesis. I understand why the Reformation needed to destroy the Papacy of St. Peter and attempted to erase the Traditions of the Church in order to create the blank slate onto which they wrote their theology. I find it simply one more in a long line of heresies and heterodoxies that have unsuccessfully challenged the Church. That said I do not find Protestants evil or even damned, just wrong.

Peace be with you.

254 posted on 05/14/2012 3:06:42 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: It takes a basic knowledge of idiomatic Greek and the procedural norms of the ekklesia to fully appreciate what is written.

__________________

The idiomatic Greek DOES NOT TELL US who spoke first or later in the text. It does tell us BASED ON the sequence of the verse that Peter spoke in verse 6 and Paul and Barnabas spoke in verse 12.

The word SILENCE was applied to the speech of Paul and Barnabas. THAT”S ALL THE TEXT TELLS US.

In fact, the text clearly states :

When they finished, James spoke up.

Who are they? I understand it to be both Paul and Barnabas. However, I would imagine you would like to include Peter in the mix. That’s alright with me. The important point is still this — Peter’s speech IS NOT THE ONLY ONE GIVEN CONSIDERATION in the text. Paul and Barnabas’ speeches were as well.

I cannot infer from the text that Peter settled the matter for everyone.

Everyone’s speech was given EQUAL CONSIDERATION, James then COMPARED what Peter said with scripture ( to confirm that it had the blessing of God’s word ) and THEN made a decision.

We ought to follow this pattern too.

RE: St. Peter was clearly identified as a special Apostle by Jesus. He was the one who was given a new name.

Being given a new name does not make one Supreme over others.

Abraham’s name was changed from Abram. Paul’s name was changed from Saul to Paul. What does that prove?

Jesus gave a special name to James and John (Mark 3:16,17). And God gave special names to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:5,15), Jacob (Gen. 32:28f), and others. Were all these people Supreme to others too?

NO. A change of name could indicate a change of status, a change of role that someone is to play, or even ( as in Jacob’s case ), an event in one’s life.

RE: He was the one who was always mentioned first by all of the Gospel writers.

But he was NOT ALWAYS MENTIONED FIRST by Paul.

In more than one occasion, James was mentioned ahead of Peter.

For instance, When the Apostle Paul visited Jerusalem fourteen years later, he mentioned that there were THREE PILLARS OF THE CHURCH THERE, AND NOT JUST ONE (PETER) AS THE SOLE PILLAR. Those three pillars were James the brother of Christ, Peter, and John. What is noteworthy here, is the fact that JAMES IS MENTIONED FIRST, AND PETER SECOND. (Gal. 2: 1-10).

RE: He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given.

I disagree with you that the keys were given EXCLUSIVELY to Peter.

They were given to ALL the apostles, and
for that matter, the whole church.

What are the keys of the kingdom? The keys are that which unlocks heaven to the sinner. What is it that locks heaven against one? It is sin.

The provision to take away sin, that man might not be shut out of heaven, is the key of the kingdom, and that provision is the gospel of our Lord. Now the privilege and commission to preach the gospel were given to all the apostles, and likewise to the whole church.

The church really exists for no other work than to preach the gospel in all the world; and if a man accepts it, the kingdom of heaven is unlocked to him.

I agree with Origen when he said this :

“Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?

‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock

(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).

So, When Origen is commenting directly on Matthew 16:18, he carefully puts aside any interpretation of the passage that would make Peter anything other than what every Christian should be. BTW, Origen is the earliest extant detailed commentary on Matthew 16:18 and interestingly sees the event described as a lesson about the life to be lived by every Christian, and not information about office or hierarchy or authority in the Church.

RE: He was the one always singled out by Jesus for special counsel and was the one to whom the keys of the Church were given. I cannot ignore all of that so that I have an open mind to Protestant eisegesis

I find it really interesting that you would READ INTO Scripture everything that makes Peter Supreme to all other Apostles and then totally ignore verses that indicate otherwise. Yours is the one that really counts as eisegesis.
You ASSUME that Peter is Supreme and then force the Scriptures to meet the assumption instead of letting scripture speak for itself.

Every single verse you ascribe to Peter can in fact be ascribed to Paul which will ridiculously make Paul the Pope.

Both myself and Roman Catholics deny that Paul was ever a Pope, but if we used the kind of reasoning that is used to “prove” Peter to be Pope, we could make a better case that Paul was Pope.

Consider the following :

* Paul was not married (1 Corinthians 7). Peter on the other hand, was.

* Acts talks about Paul more than about Peter.

* Paul rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-14); nowhere in Scripture did Peter rebuke Paul.

* Paul cared for all the churches (2 Corinthians 11:28).

* Paul stated on two occasions was not inferior to any apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Peter never made such a claim for himself.

* Paul wrote 3/4 of the New Testament books. Peter wrote only 2 little ones.

* Peter cited Paul’s letters as authority (2 Peter 3:15,16), but Paul never cited Peter’s letters as authority.

* Scripture expressly tells us Paul was in Rome, but never says Peter was there.

Paul wrote a letter to the Romans when Peter was allegedly the Pope. Why the need to do that when Peter was already there?

* Paul’s labors exceeded those of other apostles (2 Corinthians 11:23).

Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing.

Peace be to you too.

____________________________


255 posted on 05/14/2012 3:39:08 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Now if, despite all these facts, we properly conclude that Paul was not a Pope, then surely we can see that the evidence offered for Peter as Pope is equally unconvincing."

I am certain that St. Paul would be appalled at the greater than Peter, greater than Jesus status he has been elevated to by the Paulinists.

The chief difference between Protestants and Catholics is the matter of authority. I'm sure that 99% of Catholics and Protestants would agree on that one point. Where we have the Magisterium that relies on Scripture and Tradition and the active participation of the Holy Spirit Protestants rely only on Scripture and their own reason. While that is an admirable position with respect to constitutional law and politics it is a fools errand with respect to the Revealed Word of God.

When a Protestant encounters a difficulty or mystery that that does not make immediate sense to them they reject it and set about molding Scripture to their reason through self interpretation. When a Catholic encounters a difficulty or mystery we rightly conclude that the problem lies within our own finite and flawed capabilities and seek guidance from the teaching authority of the Church and prayer. With greater scrutiny authority is simply a catch phrase for relative humility and trust.

Pax et bonum.

256 posted on 05/14/2012 3:56:11 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: am certain that St. Paul would be appalled at the greater than Peter, greater than Jesus status he has been elevated to by the Paulinists.

And who has elevated Paul to greater than Jesus or greater than Peter status?

Where in my posts have shown that Paul is other than NOT INFERIOR to Peter?

All I am showing you is that it is ridiculous to use scripture to elevate Peter over all the other apostles when the indication is not there. Just as it is ridiculous to elevate Paul over the others.

Respect Peter, yes, honor him, yes, acknowledge his leadership, yes, but make him as somehow SUPREME and then on that basis, conclude that someone in Rome holds the same Supremacy? NO. That is an unwarranted stretch not supported by scripture or church history.

RE: When a Protestant encounters a difficulty or mystery that that does not make immediate sense to them they reject it and set about molding Scripture to their reason through self interpretation.

But it is not self interpretation as in we do not consult men who have studied the scripture or ignore what respected writers in the past have contributed.

No, it is prayerful, careful study, meditation and reflection, exegeting passages to make sure one gets the write meaning under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

We do not ignore the interpretations of church fathers, BUT WE DO NOT HOLD THEM AS INFALLIBLE.

There is nothing arrogant about it. It is simply obedience to the Lord’s command to Love Him with OUR HEARTS, SOUL and MINDS.

This principle is applied to scripture and SHOULD BE USED TO JUDGE THE TEACHINGS OF MEN (Popes included) AND ANGELS AS WELL. Scripture teaches us to do so and we must obey.


257 posted on 05/14/2012 4:59:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"And who has elevated Paul to greater than Jesus or greater than Peter status?"

I did not accuse you of that, but it is a persistent message from the devoutly anti-Catholics who frequent these threads therefore it is the context in which we are having this discussion. I find you have a very good ability to disagree without being disagreeable.

God Bless

258 posted on 05/14/2012 5:08:01 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Well, then it would not be hard to show in what way he is, right?”

It’s not hard at all, Webster was once Catholic and has walked away from Christ in the Eucharist(Body, Blood Soul and Divinity) and now he makes money attacking the Catholic Church denying Christ is present in the Eucharist and spinning the writing of the Church Fathers whenever they did not use the exact words that was could have been easily been errors by Philip Schaff in translation purposely to mislead people. I have translated writings of the Early Church Fathers on disk translated from Greek given to me by Kolokotronis (who used to post here on FR) that don’t match Philp Schaff CCEl site.

Webster looks for one or two single instances that don’t match 99% of what the early Church Fathers taught and implies they held beliefs contrary to their consistent beliefs shown in their writings.

I suggest you read about the New Age Philip Schaff
here is some information about him in this article
http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/HazMat/H-pp_157-202_Chapter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf

Don’t be fooled by following the cult of William Webster,dear friend. Webster will have to answer for the evil he is doing.

From the word of the late Bishop Fulton Sheen....

Nowhere in Sacred Scripture do we find warrant for the popular myth of the Devil as a buffoon who is dressed like the first “red.” Rather is he described as an angel fallen from heaven

The devil can be seen using those like Webster who mislead others by saying he is doing the work of God while attacking Christ’s Church and The Most Blessed Sacrament


259 posted on 05/14/2012 6:20:13 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

You seem to be hiding behind links and not directly answering my question.

I want YOU to show me in what way, Webster’s citations are wrong.

BTW, if denying that Christ is being sacrificed in the Eucharist belongs to the tool of the devil, you are effectively condemning EVERYONE who denies it as complicit with the devil ( that would include many FReepers ).

Show me the translated writings that you believe in for instance. Let’s start with Augustine, and yes, you can use the disk that you have and cut and paste for me the passages that show that Augustine believes that Peter is the Pope.

Don’t show me links written by Roman Catholics attacking Webster. DEAL WITH HIS ARGUMENTS.

I don’t intend to be fooled by anyone dear friend, not even from someone as well meaning as you.

I reserve the right ( given to me by God ) to judge arguments for myself.

So yes, let’s start with Augustine as the church father to look at, so that we can limit our area of focus.

RE: The devil can be seen using those like Webster who mislead others by saying he is doing the work of God while attacking Christ’s Church and The Most Blessed Sacrament

But the devil can also use well meaning people too. You know the adage, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.

We can only discern whose side the devils and who side isn’t by looking at the arguments. Start with Augustine then.

In fact, let’s focus on one part of his writings to make it even more specific so that we don’t get overwhelmed by his humongous pages of work -— HIS EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 16 to determine whether Peter is the Rock being referred to.

You can cut and paste the translation you trust.


260 posted on 05/14/2012 6:53:14 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: I have translated writings of the Early Church Fathers on disk translated from Greek given to me by Kolokotronis (who used to post here on FR) that don’t match Philp Schaff CCEl site.

Here’s a question for you — WHY IS THE TRANSLATION GIVEN BY KOLKOTRONIS’ right and Schaff’s wrong?

And why should one believe the attacks on Philip Schaff’s motives?

And please don’t give me a reason of this form : Because Philip Schaff is not Roman Catholic and Kolkotronis is.

That is not an acceptable reason.

I want an objective reason for doubting the correctness of Philip Schaff’s translation.


261 posted on 05/14/2012 7:11:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I think it might be a good idea for you to take a break and pray for Christ to open your heart and do honest research.

I have the seen the prideful know it alls become unglued before,but it is a good thing because it can lead them to humility and truth when they realize they were wrong,unlike Webster -Who I will be at Adoration praying for this week along with you.

I wish you a Blessed evening. Good Night


262 posted on 05/14/2012 7:46:25 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: I think it might be a good idea for you to take a break and pray for Christ to open your heart and do honest research.

How do you know that I am not praying?

RE: I have the seen the prideful know it alls become unglued before,but it is a good thing because it can lead them to humility and truth when they realize they were wrong

I can realize I am wrong ( if I am ) if you can show me through reason and evidence but not until.

I don’t think it is good for you to ASSUME that just because someone disagrees with you or shows doubt about your take on things, it is automatically a sign of pride.

With that, I say good night.


263 posted on 05/14/2012 8:56:41 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"I want an objective reason for doubting the correctness of Philip Schaff’s translation."

Faith.

It was Søren Kierkegaard, a Danish Lutheran, who rejected objective reasoning outright as a basis for faith. For Kierkegaard, faith was a fundamentally different process from objective reasoning, a matter of passion rather than reflection. He opposed the notion of proof to that of faith, arguing that faith is only possible when faced with uncertainty:

"Without risk, no faith... If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith."

I would also venture to add that to begin with a presumption of Schaff's correctness is not objective.

Peace be with you.

264 posted on 05/14/2012 9:12:50 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

RE: “Without risk, no faith... If I am able to apprehend God objectively, I do not have faith; but because I cannot do this, I must have faith.”

Sure, but what is the OBJECT of your faith?

Faith is only as good as the OBJECT for your faith. If you faith is on X and X does not help you, then your faith is in vain.

The 9/11 hijackers had faith that their martyrdom would bring them reward. What good did it do for them?

Hence, I choose to put my absolute faith in the WORD OF GOD.

As for Schiff vs some other translation, I am not going to put blind faith in any one of them. I have to use the faculties that God has given me to make a judgement. Not simply say — just because someone said he is trustworthy or he has sinister motives — I should then believe him.

For now, it seems to me that Schiff looks like a good resource. That is why I asked the other poster to show me with good evidence that he is not.


265 posted on 05/15/2012 6:12:38 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"Sure, but what is the OBJECT of your faith?"

I'll go with St. Thomas Aquinas on this one:

"The object of every cognitive habit includes two things: first, that which is known materially, and secondly, that whereby it is known. In both of these, the object of faith is God."

266 posted on 05/15/2012 11:43:21 AM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

I have no objections with Aquinas’ view.


267 posted on 05/15/2012 12:05:28 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"I have no objections with Aquinas’ view."

I didn't think you would. I've seen a lot of people try to argue against Aquinas, but none successfully.

268 posted on 05/15/2012 12:12:22 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

“”I’ve seen a lot of people try to argue against Aquinas, but none successfully.””

Especially one like this from Blessed Aquinas-who quotes The Early Church Fathers in the proper context upholding what they believed.

CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM
by ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b33
C
HAPTER 33

That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.” Footnote

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.” Footnote

This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd.

CHAPTER 34

That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.

It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.” Footnote

And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.” Footnote

This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven.


269 posted on 05/15/2012 3:41:45 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Here it is again after I removed the Footnote parts

CONTRA ERRORES GRAECORUM
by ST. THOMAS AQUINAS
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b33
CHAPTER 33

That the same Pontiff has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ.

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”

This is also taught on the authority of Holy Scripture. For Christ entrusted hi sheep to the care of Peter without restriction, when he said in the last chapter of John (21:15): Feed my sheep; and in John 10:16: That there might be one fold and one shepherd.

CHAPTER 34

That the same possesses in the Church a fullness of power.

It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”

And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16: 19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven.


270 posted on 05/15/2012 3:47:53 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“”I can realize I am wrong ( if I am ) if you can show me through reason and evidence but not until.””

Eucharistic Miracles
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

The Eucharistic Miracles of the World
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

Try going to Eucharist Adoration in a church near you and perhaps Our Lord will change your mind.Protestants are welcome to attend Eucharist Adoration

Assuming you live in the US ,here is the list

Churches and Chapels in USA that have Eucharistic Adoration
http://www.therealpresence.org/chap_fr.htm


271 posted on 05/15/2012 4:00:22 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I don’t think it is good for you to ASSUME that just because someone disagrees with you or shows doubt about your take on things, it is automatically a sign of pride.

I apologize,dear friend, I have a very bad fault of antagonizing people sometimes. I will need to go to confession for this since it's wrong and sinful

I wish you a Blessed evening

272 posted on 05/15/2012 4:06:06 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

RE: Eucharistic Miracles
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html

The Eucharistic Miracles of the World
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm

Try going to Eucharist Adoration in a church near you and perhaps Our Lord will change your mind.Protestants are welcome to attend Eucharist Adoration

______________________

Again, please don’t post the ENTIRE website for me. I know how to get there and the EWTN websites to get their information.

This is FR, and I want YOU to tell me what you believe and why. With scriptural support.


273 posted on 05/15/2012 4:07:46 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
"Especially one like this from Blessed Aquinas..."

Thank you. St. Thomas Aquinas is a favorite of mine. I just finished reading Chesterton's essay "St. Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox". A very insightful look at the man behind the theology. I highly recommend it.

Pax et bonum.

274 posted on 05/15/2012 5:54:33 PM PDT by Natural Law (Mary was the face that God chose for Himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-274 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson