| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Lainey |
Posted - May 28 2003 : 04:09:20 AM
quote:
Ok Lainey, I just HATE it when you beat around the bush...for once, could you just say what you think!!! Seriously though, don't get me wrong, I am hardly ready to convert, just trying to form a fair and informed opinion here! But it does raise the question again, what is the difference between a religion and a cult...is it mind control? If so, doesn't all religion use an element of that?
Yes, once again we come back to this question. First, a clarification (JUST for you, Adele!). When I used the word 'cult' I was using its more recent pejorative meaning, i.e., an organization that uses mind control, deception, fear, societal restrictions, & manufactured, erroneous "doctrine" to keep its members in line. Free will, which is the foundation of true religion & the heart of Christian soteriology, is nowhere to be found in a cult society. It would be fatal to its existence.
Cult?
The word 'cult' in its pure form is not negative at all. Its Latin origin - inhabitants, groupings, worship, cultivate, worshippers, reverence, etc. Basically, its traditional meaning is a group of worshippers or a group that performs specific ceremonies or rites. The ancient pagan world had cults devoted to specific deities & the Christian world still refers to the 'cult of the saints' or 'Marian cults.' The word shouldn't be used too quickly as a derogatory write-off as it is tempting to designate any religious group or denomination that disagrees with our own system of belief as a cult. {It's probably more accurate to stick to the word 'occult' as this does mean to conceal, to hide, secretive, etc.} Another danger regarding the defining of cults is allowing pluralistic cultures to legislate regarding who is & who isn't (such as France has done). Remember the tragedies of Ruby Ridge & Waco? Having first been marginalized & vilified as whackos, fanatics, & cultists, both groups were made easy targets of government brutality & both incidents were publicly *justified* on the basis of the members' "fanaticism." The same thing had occurred in Philadelphia during the '80s with the firebombing of M.O.V.E.'s building. So, the question of cult vs religion is very important but must be considered cautiously.
Religion?
An Deus sit? - Does God exist? This is the foremost question of theological philosophy & the answer, once discovered, guides & forms the character & beliefs of the religious. To ask, search, reflect, discern, & ultimately believe the answer to the question of God requires faith & reason, & these two intangible expressions can not contradict each other, nor blossom apart from free will. One can reason the existence of God (theology of natural philosophy) but it takes faith to accept & embrace that discovery, or to embrace God with a 'yes' that initiates conversion. All of this is built upon man's free will to act, to choose, to accept, or to reject. This is the business & purpose of religion (and the inherent business of man). It was an underlying theme even in Sophocles' Theban tragedies even though there had been no known expression of the concept of free will up until that point (5th century) in Greek literature/philosophy. Everything centered around the Fates & the Oracle at Delphi & the curse of the gods - a belief in absolute predestination that no one could escape (a calvinistic doom) ... until Oedipus, though condemned to unwittingly commit atrocious offenses, responded with actions that sought to circumvent the Oracle's prediction, & later, when faced with the reality of his guilt plead innocence by ignorance, & then again raised the question of free will by his willful, chosen actions which set into motion his own downfall. Free will, it seems, had a place even in the face of ruthless fate.
So, no, all religio |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lainey |
Posted - July 03 2003 : 02:16:37 AM
The Church's Canonical declarations did not make these books Sacred Scripture, it is true, but it infallibly declared them so. In the face of so many spurious epistles & false Gospels, only the Church could have discerned (because God was/is with her) what was Sacred & what was not. That is Jim's point.
Of course, Church Tradition predated & played a crucial role in the Canon of Sacred Scripture.
Nothing else was possible. |
| securemann |
Posted - June 28 2003 : 6:38:28 PM
Very simple.2Peter,2,3John,Jude,James,Hebrews and Revelation were NOT Canon at one time.They were not even recognized.They were not considered scripture at one time.Very simple.They needed to be decided on.All 27 books were written by 100AD.There would be no need of Catholic Councils if they knew this was the canon immediately in 100AD.The Church decided.Very simple. |
| securemann |
Posted - June 28 2003 : 4:53:57 PM
Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas was in Codex Sinaiticus late in the 4th century. |
| securemann |
Posted - June 28 2003 : 4:44:04 PM
They were considered scripture by some Church Fathers.Awareness of a Canon only begins towards the end of the 2nd century.The phrase,"New Teatament" was first used by Tertullian around 200AD.The Muratorian Canon around 190AD excludes Hebrews,James,1Peter and 2Peter.These are canonical books that were out at one time then got in again.If they were self authenticating,they would have never been excluded from this early canon.Thanks to the Catholic Church now we know. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - June 28 2003 : 11:29:54 AM
" How do you know you have the infallible Word of God? What you do have is a fallible collection of infallible books.Makes no sense to me.Why are we not reading the Epistle of Barnabas or the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Shephard of Hermas? Cannot seem to get a logical answer to why these writings and many more were scripture at one time and now they are not.And why 7 writings of the N.T.in which we all believe to be scripture now at one point was not scripture? Who decided? There were no bible Christians back then because you didn't have a bible.Christ ascended to heaven around 33 A.D.Nothing was written for about the next 15-20 years.How were these people saved without any writings of the N.T. if you believe in scripture only? Hmmmm.........."
How many times must I say this, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Hebrews and the Shephard of Hermas and others were not Scripture, were never canon, just because a fallible man (as all humans are) included them in a fallible list of books he thought might be considered Scripture. Same with those canonical books which were left out of some lists, they were not non-canonical at any time. Nothing was ever "scripture at one time and now they are not." The canon was later identified, by whether these books met the rules of canonicity. No one denies the Scriptures were first spoken through the guidance of the Holy Spirit before being written down through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This is God's final revelation, and nothing can be added or taken away through anything spoken or written.
|
| securemann |
Posted - June 27 2003 : 3:22:31 PM
In archeology we have the testimony that in 1911 Roman archeologists unearthed a marble slab with the following inscription in Greek upon it:Here Blessed Peter absolved us,the elect,from the sins confessed." Professor Ballerini,a non-Catholic,well versed in archeology,says,"It is what Christian tradition knew as 'the Confessionary of ST.Peter'." At any rate,the finding of this remarkable testimony upon this slab is conclusive evidence against those worldly-wise authorities who deny that auricular confession is of Apostolic times.Wow! Peter in Rome forgiving sins? Oh no. |
| securemann |
Posted - June 27 2003 : 3:11:15 PM
I'll throw this in for good measure.Calvin,like Luther and Zwingli,taught the perpetual virginity of Mary.The early reformers even applied,though with some reticence,the title Theotokos to Mary... Calvin called on his followers to venerate and praise her as the teacher who instructs them in her Son's commands.(J.A.Ross MacKenzie,(Protestant) in Stacpoole Alberic,ed.,Mary's Place in Christian Dialogue,Wilton,Conn,Morehouse-Barlow,1982,pp35-36) Hmmm,Calvin taught something supposingly not found in scripture? |
| Lainey |
Posted - June 27 2003 : 09:10:28 AM
The Gospels according to Luther
Reforming the Word of God
Sayeth Jim;
" How do you know you have the infallible Word of God? What you do have is a fallible collection of infallible books.Makes no sense to me.Why are we not reading the Epistle of Barnabas or the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Shephard of Hermas? Cannot seem to get a logical answer to why these writings and many more were scripture at one time and now they are not.And why 7 writings of the N.T.in which we all believe to be scripture now at one point was not scripture? Who decided? There were no bible Christians back then because you didn't have a bible.Christ ascended to heaven around 33 A.D.Nothing was written for about the next 15-20 years.How were these people saved without any writings of the N.T. if you believe in scripture only? Hmmmm.........."
A point all would do well to take seriously.
Isn't it folly to base one's entire salvation theory on unquestionably errant copies of Sacred Scripture? What good is this man crafted plan when the conceivers of such a non-Scriptural idea did not even give care to the sacredness of Scriptures from the outstart?
It's A Damned Shame
OR
What Have You Done To Our Bible, Luther?!!!
Deficiencies of the Protestant Bible
"(1) The point that we have arrived at now, if you remember, is this – The Catholic Church, through her Popes and Councils, gathered together the separate books that Christians venerated which existed in different parts of the world; sifted the chaff from the wheat, the false from the genuine; decisively and finally formed a collection – i.e., drew up a list or catalogue of inspired and apostolic writings into which no other books should ever be admitted, and declared that these and these only, were the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament. The authorities that were mainly responsible for thus settling and closing the ‘Canon’ of Holy Scripture were the Councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St. Augustine (at the latter of which two Legates were present from the Pope), and the Popes Innocent I in 405, and Gelasius, 494, both of whom issued lists of Sacred Scripture identical with that fixed by the Councils. Form that date all through the centuries this was the Christian’s Bible. The Church never admitted any other; and at the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, and the Council of Trent in the sixteenth, and the Council of the Vatican in the nineteenth, she renewed her anathemas against all who should deny or dispute this collection of books as the inspired Word of God. [Note: What was that charge concerning lack of Papal involvement until the 16th century?]
(2) What follows from this is self-evident. The same authority which made and collected and preserved these books alone has the right to claim them as her own, and to say what the meaning of them is. The Church of St. Paul and St. Peter and St. James in the first century was the same Church as that of the Council of Carthage and of St. Augustine in the fourth, and of the Council of Florence in the fifteenth, and the Vatican in the nineteenth – one and the same body – growing and developing, certainly, as every living thing must do, but still preserving its identity and remaining essentially the same body ,as a man of 80 is the same person as he was at 40, and the same person at 40 as he was at 2. The Catholic Church of today, then, may be compared to a man who has grown from infancy to youth, and from youth to middle-age. Suppose a man wrote a letter setting forth certain statements, whom would you naturally ask to tell what the meaning of these statements was? Surely the man that wrote it. The Church wrote the New Testament; she, and she alone, can tell us what the meaning of it is.
Again, the Catholic Church is like a person who was present at the si |
| securemann |
Posted - June 26 2003 : 11:55:13 AM
Jerome's Letter to Pope Damasus,The Bishop of Rome,A.D.376: "...As I follow no leader save Christ,so I communicate with none but your blessedness,that is with the Chair of Peter.For this,I know,is the rock on which the Church is built.This is the house where alone the pascal lamb can be rightly eaten.This is the ark of Noah,and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.He that gathers not with you scatters..." There you have it in a nut shell.Anyone who still argues about the Papacy and the Church and quotes people almost 1200 years later who write against this is well....Remove the blinders and read the Church Fathers. |
| Lainey |
Posted - June 26 2003 : 10:46:34 AM
quote:
Here is what the debate between Protestant and Roman Catholic really boils down to in my view. Most Protestants have no problem with tradition, creeds and confessions, as long as they don't contradict the infallible Word of God, the Scriptures. The Protestant views the veneration of saints, purgatory, perpetual virginity of Mary, human infallibility, popery, infant baptism, etc., etc. as coming from additional traditions contradictory to Scripture. That nowhere in Scripture can evidence of these traditions be found, and that any scriptural passage used by Roman Catholics to justify these traditions is interpreted in a manner contradictory to the rest of Scripture. And that Roman Catholism results in complete autonomy, where Christ is no longer necessary. The Roman Catholic claims otherwise.
Yes and no. There isn't even agreement among Protestants on these *objections* to "popery" & its Scripturally proven "traditions." (Ex: Seven Sacraments. No, two. Wait, five. No, it's two. Two? Put back three. Five. No. Take away three. Two it is! Thus did Calvin call Luther [among other things] a half-papist & a mad dog.) You're crediting Protestantism with a unity it simply doesn't & never did have, & this is a critical issue for all Christians to consider. While I understand your view, I strongly reject it.
quote:
And on and on the debate goes, never getting anywhere, because both sides are convinced they are right...
Not so. It isn't an equitable impasse by any means, which can be affirmed by the many, many Protestant converts to Catholicism who are among the most gifted, dedicated Catholic apologetists to be found, even on the internet. (And you would answer there are former Catholics among your ranks.) The debate is never in vain.
And so, since there still remains assertions made against Catholicism & its doctrines within these threads, there's NO WAY in Hades I'm letting them stand unchallenged (but you already knew that). Whether or not you choose to continue, I sincerely appreciate your points, views, contributions, & defense of your faith ... it is never in vain.
Now, about that Rock & a hard place ... |
| Lainey |
Posted - June 26 2003 : 09:59:03 AM
Nice diversion ... thanks for *sharing.* :)
"Jehovah's Witnesses share exactly these same qualities with the Roman Catholic Church"
Exhilaratingly spun as these 24 JW/RC Talking Points might be (and I was sorely tempted to have my fun with them!), they are nothing more than fanciful ravings of a cyber-charged simpleton. After filtering out seven repetitive "similarities" meant to fluff up the fictional tale of two deities, then putting to pasture the false "qualities" charged to the Church, I found five little shadows remaining. Five. (An argument could be made for a sixth with explanation attached.) Of these little five, other religious bodies have a share.
And ...the point is?
Art imitates life. Shadows imitate form. Evil imitates good.
In fact, rebels & dissenters often imitate & emulate Truth, as surely as fraud imitates Virtue.
It is to dispel these sorts of ignorance born, prejudicial myths (like the silly simpleton's sanguine saga) that we bother to engage in apologetics.
|
| securemann |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 8:28:41 PM
How do you know you have the infallible Word of God? What you do have is a fallible collection of infallible books.Makes no sense to me.Why are we not reading the Epistle of Barnabas or the Gospel of the Hebrews or the Shephard of Hermas? Cannot seem to get a logical answer to why these writings and many more were scripture at one time and now they are not.And why 7 writings of the N.T.in which we all believe to be scripture now at one point was not scripture? Who decided? There were no bible Christians back then because you didn't have a bible.Christ ascended to heaven around 33 A.D.Nothing was written for about the next 15-20 years.How were these people saved without any writings of the N.T. if you believe in scripture only? Hmmmm.......... |
| securemann |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 8:05:00 PM
Everything you state was believed by the early Church.Citations abound.Protestant thought is new and unheard of in the early Church.Just alittle perusing through the Church Fathers instead of folks who wrote 1500 years later.The Fathers I do believe were alittle closer to the era we are talking about. |
| securemann |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 7:57:03 PM
All Christians,Protestant and Catholic alike believe the same Christology of Christ.The formula of Christ,one Divine Person in two natures.It took well over 400 years to hammer this out thanks to the Roman Catholic Church which had to fight all the heresies pertaining to the person of Christ.All truth came from Rome.Arians,Nestorians,Monophysites and many many more Christological errors had to be corrected by Rome.The J.W's are just a repeat of Arianism.There are many elements of paganism in Christianity.Does similarity imply that they are the same? There are many virgin birth stories in paganism.There are many incarnations of "gods" throughout history.We all sink here,Protestants and Catholics because we are pagans!We believe in a story that has its roots in paganism. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 7:46:19 PM
"Which are we to trust, Scripture, or tradition?"
"As a good son of the Church, both. As has already been pointed out at length, Scripture & Tradition do not contradict each other, they are complementary coordinates."
Here is what the debate between Protestant and Roman Catholic really boils down to in my view. Most Protestants have no problem with tradition, creeds and confessions, as long as they don't contradict the infallible Word of God, the Scriptures. The Protestant views the veneration of saints, purgatory, perpetual virginity of Mary, human infallibility, popery, infant baptism, etc., etc. as coming from additional traditions contradictory to Scripture. That nowhere in Scripture can evidence of these traditions be found, and that any scriptural passage used by Roman Catholics to justify these traditions is interpreted in a manner contradictory to the rest of Scripture. And that Roman Catholism results in complete autonomy, where Christ is no longer necessary. The Roman Catholic claims otherwise.
And on and on the debate goes, never getting anywhere, because both sides are convinced they are right...
 |
| securemann |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 7:35:51 PM
Peter's preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ,although the implications were only slowly unfolded.At their first meeting,Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter,which translates as Rock (Jn 1:42).The starting thing was that in the O.T. only God was called a rock.The word was never used as a proper name for a man.What does it signify?Indeed,why Peter for Simon the fisherman? Why give him as a name a word only used for God before this moment? Not only was there significance in Simon being given a name that has been used only to describe God,but the place where the renaming occurred was also important.Yes,I agree that all the apostles had the job to feed the sheep but who was the only one to get the "Keys".In ancient times keys were the hallmark of authority.A walled city might have one great gate and that gate one great lock worked by one key read (Is 22:22) in the O.T. Peter got the keys,no one else. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 7:18:42 PM
Ran across this while surfing, and thought it was too funny in an ironic way, in light of recent postings in this thread about JWs. 
"Jehovah's Witnesses share exactly these same qualities with the Roman Catholic Church
1). Centralized World-wide church government from which all official doctrine comes. The Pope and the Governing body.
2). A city where world headquarters permanently resides: Rome, Italy and Brooklyn, NY, USA
3). Authority of this "world organization" is not to be questioned.
4). Both consider God to be the head of the world organization.
5). Both the Pope and the Governing body both claim inspiration.
6). Both organizations are "spirit directed" by God.
7). A simple definition of both is as follows: "Definition of a Catholic/Jw: 'Someone who accepts Rome/Brooklyn as God's visible spirit-directed theocratic organization upon the earth.
8). Both have official yearly meetings of the world leaders.
9). The official doctrines that have changed dramatically over time.
10). Both claim "new light" or progressive revelation to explain doctrinal changes.
11). Both teach the organization is supreme over the Bible rather than the Bible being supreme over the organization.
12). The average members are told by the organization that they cannot understand the Bible without the help of the official organization.
13). Both discourage independent thinking from the world organization.
14). Both continue to blindly follow the organization in spite of major doctrinal changes, reversals and flip-flops.
15). Both "explain away" doctrinal changes, reversals and flip-flops by claiming "new light".
16). Both view every other church as heretical and false.
17). No salvation outside of their organization.
18). The word of the organization is unquestionably final.
19). Interpreting the Bible is the sole right of the organization.
20). Both make claims that because of their size, growth, activity, they must have the truth.
21). Both have authoritative writings in addition to the Bible. Creeds, catechisms and the watchtower.
22). Both teach that you cannot understand the Bible unless you compare the Bible with their official "authoritative writings" Creeds and Watchtower.
23). Both have an official clergy system with special privileges and rights the common member does not have. Priests and the Governing body.
24). Both have system of monasteries where "most holy and dedicated" selflessly pledge to do the "work for God" without any material rewards. No children are allowed in both. Catholic = monasteries; JW = Bethel"
Now I didn't write this, but I can't honestly deny having similar thoughts while reading the posts on JWs.
|
| Lainey |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 11:30:22 AM
"In Acts 12:17 we read that following Peter's release from prison, "he departed and went to another place." Roman Catholics suggest that that place was Rome. This is a highly speculative assertion. This "going to another place" would have been about A.D. 42-5, thus the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was in Rome beginning in A.D. 42. But we know for a fact that Peter attended the Jerusalem Council in A.D. 49 [Acts 15:7]. We also know that Peter was in Antioch before ca. A.D. 49-52 [Galations 2:11], it is also possible he may have been in Corinth before A.D. 56, since there was a "party of Peter" there [1 Corinthians 1:12]. Biblical scholar E. Shuyler English has also noted that, "Paul, who disdained to 'build upon another man's foundation' [Romans 15:20], would scarcely have written a treatise such as the Epistle to the Romans had Peter been in Rome as bishop for about fourteen years." If Peter was already there, it would have been completely unnecessary for Paul to write to the Romans or to go there (whether voluntarily or involuntarily)."
"Which are we to trust, Scripture, or tradition?"
As a good son of the Church, both. As has already been pointed out at length, Scripture & Tradition do not contradict each other, they are complementary coordinates. Nothing in Sacred Tradition regarding Peter's undeniable presence in Rome as the Vicar of Christ contradicts the Scriptural accounts of Peter's apostolic life.
Here's an error;
"In Acts 12:17 we read that following Peter's release from prison, "he departed and went to another place." Roman Catholics suggest that that place was Rome. This is a highly speculative assertion. This "going to another place" would have been about A.D. 42-5, thus the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was in Rome beginning in A.D. 42."
Roman Catholics do NOT suggest Peter's Roman See began in A.D. 42. We assert that Peter ruled over the Church of Antioch after he departed Jerusalem & before he went to Rome. In favor of Peter's Apostolic Primacy we point out that the Church of Antioch never disputed the right of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy even though Peter had first been a bishop there. In fact, no See in all of Christendom ever disputed the Bishops' of Rome's claims as successors of Peter & heirs of his Primacy.
"But we know for a fact that Peter attended the Jerusalem Council in A.D. 49 [Acts 15:7]."
Yes, the Jerusalem Council (the first Church Council). This too supports Peter's primacy.
Dissensions arose at the Church of Antioch over the issue of circumcision of the gentiles. It was decided that Paul & Barnabas, along with certain others of the opposing side, should go up to the apostles & presbyters at Jerusalem to resolve the question. They went where Peter was. After a long debate, Peter rose & said; "Brethren, you know that in early days God made choice among us, that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe." It was Peter who settled the dispute once and for all.
"We also know that Peter was in Antioch before ca. A.D. 49-52 [Galations 2:11]."
Yes, we do, & that he presided over the Church of Antioch.
"it is also possible he may have been in Corinth before A.D. 56, since there was a "party of Peter" there [1 Corinthians 1:12]."
Not likely at all. Paul wrote the Epistle to the Corinthians from Ephesus (A.D. 57) to correct certain disorders he had heard of & to answer particular questions that had arisen. One of the disorders was the petty divisions based upon attachments to particular men; "Each of you says, I am of Paul, or I am of Apollos, or I am of Cephas, or I am of Christ. Has Christ been divided up?"
He was putting down factional strife. It is interesting to note that this is an instance where Peter is referred to by the Greek adaptation "Cephas" of the Aramaic "Cepha." [More on this later ...]
"Paul, who disdained to 'build upon another man's foundation' [Romans 15:20], woul |
| Lainey |
Posted - June 25 2003 : 09:59:06 AM
{Don't recall that series, Highlander. How was it?}
CT, I'm sorry, but you are wrong.
Once again I turn to Tertullian:
"They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety. And if any one brings before them a passage of Divine Scripture, they see whether a conjunctive or disjunctive form of syllogism can be made from it."
Syllogism is what this pursuit against Peter is. Syllogism is what the objections to the rendering of penance is.
Taking up first your issue with St. Jerome's rendering of the Greek.
"What, are there still translations which vainly hold on to the word "penance"?! You really should watch what translation you use. It is very well known that when Jerome updated the Latin Bible into the then current vernacular Latin, that he mistranslated the Greek metanoia, as penance. You cannot make any Scriptural claim to penance. "By 1529, many scholars and theologians (Erasmus among them) knew that "penance" as a translation for the Greek word and its cognates was not right..."Penance" was a Sacrament; "repentence" or "penitence" offered a new beginning by breaking with the past. But through the sale of indulgences and other penitential commerce, "penance" had proved a lucrative source of Church income. Protestants were convinced that the clergy were determined to keep the word 'because the word kept them.'" -Bobrick"
Your emotive reaction that there are "still translations" using the word "penance" notwithstanding, it is neither "vain" nor incorrect.
We can use 'penance' or we can use 'repent/repentance' - both express a need to change towards God with true contrition (which IS the foundation of penance as a sacrament & for which there are numerable Scriptural references); a conversion of the mind & soul; an action Our Lord repeatedly called for. To object as if there is some major error or mistranslation here is pure syllogism.
What does the Greek 'metanoia' mean? Literally it means 'beyond the mind.' There is no Latin or English word that exactly expresses the Greek, therefore, the essence of the word is rendered as fully as possible to retain the Scriptural meaning. How then does 'repentance' more fully or with perspecuity express metanoia than does 'penance'? How does 'repentance' more clearly & faithfully express 'beyond the mind'? Bobrick's statement; "..."Penance" was a Sacrament; "repentence" or "penitence" offered a new beginning by breaking with the past" is odd. What, pray tell, does he think the Sacrament brings forth if not "a new beginning by breaking with the past"??? This is the very syllogistic pursuit of a conjunctive or disjunctive form which Tertullian criticized.
His next statement betrays the real motive; "But through the sale of indulgences and other penitential commerce, "penance" had proved a lucrative source of Church income. Protestants were convinced that the clergy were determined to keep the word 'because the word kept them.'" Rubbish. Here we see the objection is really nothing more than anti-Catholic prejudice.
As for watching which "translation" I use; I heed your advice - & I never "use" translations outside the Church since none but those approved by her have the guarantee of genuiness, authenticity, or veracity. |
| Highlander |
Posted - June 24 2003 : 12:50:57 AM
Is anyone familiar with the NBC miniseries A.D. or Anno Domini from 1985?It begins after the crucifixion of Our Lord and covers the time period of The Acts of The Apostles.At the same time,it follows the reign of the Claudio-Julian Family from Tiberius to Nero. |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - June 23 2003 : 7:34:06 PM
"In Acts 12:17 we read that following Peter's release from prison, "he departed and went to another place." Roman Catholics suggest that that place was Rome. This is a highly speculative assertion. This "going to another place" would have been about A.D. 42-5, thus the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was in Rome beginning in A.D. 42. But we know for a fact that Peter attended the Jerusalem Council in A.D. 49 [Acts 15:7]. We also know that Peter was in Antioch before ca. A.D. 49-52 [Galations 2:11], it is also possible he may have been in Corinth before A.D. 56, since there was a "party of Peter" there [1 Corinthians 1:12]. Biblical scholar E. Shuyler English has also noted that, "Paul, who disdained to 'build upon another man's foundation' [Romans 15:20], would scarcely have written a treatise such as the Epistle to the Romans had Peter been in Rome as bishop for about fourteen years." If Peter was already there, it would have been completely unnecessary for Paul to write to the Romans or to go there (whether voluntarily or involuntarily)."
Which are we to trust, Scripture, or tradition?
"Roman Catholic theologians often argue that Christ's instruction to Peter [John 21:15-7] to "tend my lambs" and "shepard My sheep" proves that Jesus was putting Peter in a position of authority over the church. Indeed the word shepard is particularly a term of authority. We read in the Manual of Dogmatic Theology: "Since this authority is given only to Peter, then Peter holds the true primacy through which he performs the offices of the supreme pastor of Christ's church." There is no hint in John 21:15-7 that Jesus was elevating Peter to a position of supremacy. Rather, Jesus exacts a threefold confession of love from Peter to make up for his threefold denial of Christ. The Lord is simply restoring a fallen apostle. Christ was seeking Peter's restoration. The only reason Peter was singled out here is that he is the single apostle that denied Christ. Jesus was not exalting Peter above the other apostles here, but bringing him back up to their level.
Elsewhere in Scripture we see that the other apostles are also called to feed and watch out for the "sheep" of the church [Acts 20:28]. This indicates that Peter was not given some unique calling over and against the other apostles. Peter himself wrote:
Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepard the flock of God among you, excercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepard appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory [1 Peter 5:1-4, emphasis added).
This passage shows that:
1). Peter indicates that others besides himself shepard the flock of God, showing that he is not unique.
2). Peter refers to himself as a "fellow elder," therby putting himself on the same level as other elders. Peter did not view himself as supreme.
There are a number of factors in the Greek text which argue against the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18. First, whenever Peter is referred to in this passage, it is in the second person ("you"), but "this rock" is in the third person. Moreover, "Peter" petros is a masculine singular term, and "rock" petra is a feminine singular term. Hence, they do not have the same referent. Jesus did not say to Peter, "You are Petros and on this Petros I will build my church." Jesus said "You are Petros, and opon this petra, I will build my church. Many Catholics respond by suggesting that Jesus poke these words in the Aramaic language: "You are kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my church." Unlike Greek, Aramaic uses one word kepha< |
| securemann |
Posted - June 21 2003 : 2:28:36 PM
On the Canon of the NT, one only needs to read the Decree of Pope St.DamasusI at the Council of Rome in 382A.D.It is called,"The Decree of Damasus",and one should take note towards the end of this decree which boldly states the authority of the Church and the Bishop of Rome. |
| securemann |
Posted - June 21 2003 : 2:20:28 PM
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the City of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter;the chair in which Peter sat,the same who was head-that is why he is also called Cephas-of all the apostles;the one chair in which unity is maintained by all."(The Schism of the Donatists,2:2) OPTATIUS (A.D.367) |
| securemann |
Posted - June 20 2003 : 3:19:40 PM
On scripture: St.Augustine stated:"I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so." |
| Lainey |
Posted - June 20 2003 : 04:54:10 AM
What did the Church Fathers say about Peter's Roman Holyday? Quite a lot ... beginning with Pope Clement, followed chronologically til 462.
"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him."
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement (A.D. 96)
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans (A.D. 110)
'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History (A.D. 178)
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies (A.D. 180)
"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, Fragment in Eusebius Church History (A.D. 190)
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, Fragment in Eusebius' Church History (A.D. 198)
"What utterance also the Romans give, so very near to the apostles, to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion (A.D. 207-212)
'We read the lives of the Caesars; At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace (A.D. 212)
"Peter, at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head downwards, for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis (A.D. 232) Fragment in Eusebius
"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9 (A.D. 306)
"Which Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius, The Divine Institutes (A.D. 310)
"Peter, coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there."
Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (A.D. 325)
"This man, Simon Magus,after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome. Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right, for Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven."
Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures (A.D. 350)
"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey, yea, rather, they departed rejoicing."
Athanasius, Defence of his Flight (A.D. 357)
"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
