Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
In other words "Please go read our stacks and stacks of claims that we've been unable to prove for 1500 years and had to resort to other means to sell.." With all due respect, your chatting with people who in many cases could beat you to the draw doing cut and pastes from CE and the like. Hopefully we don't come off as flippant; but, we've been here a year in these discussions and as I've stated, I've studdied it since 1988. Some of the stuff you're quoting was shredded and ended up on the rubbage heap 6-8 months ago and I realize that puts you at a major handicap; but, there it is. If I seem to jump on you, call me on it. But, do yourself a favor and don't start winging charges of bigotry and prejudice as a last resort when you can't defend your ground. And don't think you can sell CE to ex-catholics, the which you are trying to do in some cases, though not in mine. I won't say they'll hand you your butt literally; but, doctrinally ...
The Peshitto and the lectionaries of the Syrian Orthodox and the Chaldeans are very venerable. And you will get vigorous arguments from their scholars as to which is more reliable - the Koine Greek text or theirs. Then there are the Armenians who are always ready to challenge the idea that Koine Greek is the most exact language and make a good case that their Armenian version is more reliable -- a version which also points up the difference in discourse between Zechariah and Mary. These many old translations provide multiple attestation in different locales of the same sense of the difference between Mary and Zechariah's response. You can also consult the sermons of the early church fathers and find this same distinction drawn.
All of that provides the background in which to understand a culture that is different from our own and which employed a language different than English and certainly different than NT Greek.
You won't find much in the early church fathers to support your view that God told them what to do and they obeyed. These three stories -- Zechariah, the Annunciation to Mary, and the Damascus Road experience of Paul all point to a theology of the person in the early church that can be summed up as a theology of participation. Under the Law, we were called to obey. Under the New Covenant, we are called to participate through the cleansing of the Blood of Christ and the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit.
The point isn't even dabatable. Do you need me to copy and paste the salient points of that thread (I'd rather not) or will you just admit to your disingenuousness now?
And your clergy chose to feed the commoner with it - a language they didn't understand and that was primarily used among the elite. Uhuh. Again, you finally say it; but, look how long it took you in denials to get there. An insiders language that excludes the uneducated from its circle. In otherwords, the dumb stay dumb and thus can't question what they're being taught if they don't understand it. Just one natural side effect.
Your a hypocrite and a poor apologist to boot, you might have might have some people fooled but not I or the rest of the world that can see through your weak attemps at being the victim, go clean your own back yard up before insulting thinking folks that don't fall for your propaganda talking points.
You can start with these:
[Boston Archdiocese] Bombshell details of sexual abuse revealed in documents
[Los Angeles Cardinal] Mahony E-Mail Talks of 'Our Big Mistake'
New York priest extradited to face Massachusetts rape charge
Goodbye, Good Men--An Expose of the Homosexual Revolution in the Catholic Church
BigMack
I won't comment on the rest of your dialogue; but, I will say this. The new covenant requires obediance every bit as much as the old. If you're of the notion that obediance went out the door and we can all be jolly and dance forth in ignorance of God's requirements, you need to get yourself into a concordance and look up the iterations of the word obey and disobey and check all the mentions in the NT. You'll find that eternal life as a promise is hinged upon the notion and that our very name of Christian derives from being not merely hearers but doers - listening and being obedient to the leading of the spirit. (John 10, Romans 8, Acts 5, Mark 16...)
The concept is called the development of doctrine.
All the rest is fluff.
No, its all true.
Are you, perchance, being a little defensive? What teachings of Aquinas did I list which you feel the necessity to defend?
None. However you did state I needed to accept all the writings of Aquinas as "official". I pointed out I need to do no such thing and I used the example of the Immaculate Conception.
Why It's almost as if I said he advocated the killing of heretics. BTW, would you find it necessary to defend this position?
No, heretics need to be evangelized.
BTW you sure go off topic quickly. In your original post you asked me where the official teaching was on Latria, Hyperdulia, Dulia. I responded with a link to the Summa Theologica. Then you said that wouldn't do unless I was willing to accept all the writings of Aquinas as "official. I then responded with the reasons why that is not case and you call my answers fluff. Now you're asking me if I want to defend killing heretics. Sheesh.
BAWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! (snort:)
BigMack
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.