Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who resurrected this thread? I remember this thread since my last time I was around. oh my my..... lol....
All that a comment like that one proves is that he doesn't know much about Christian church history.-snip-
CJ,
If you want me to believe you are sincere, then join me in condemning all religious slurs.
Josiah said:I never have, still don't and never will defend the purposeful use of offensive language - by a Catholic, Protestant, LDS or any other - and you WELL KNOW THAT.
-snip-
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
4. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies, III.3 (St. Irenaeus)
-snip-
Several years ago I was reading 1 Clement and I was alarmed that St. Clement (the fourth pope) seemed to believe that the phoenix was a real animal. Moreover, St. Clement uses the phoenix as a sign of Christ's resurrection.
Let us consider that wonderful sign [of the resurrection] which takes place in eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the deed bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed. (1 Clement 25)Was Clement nuts or was he speaking from a valid tradition?
As it turns out, the tale of the phoenix is actually found in the Bible's oldest book - the book of Job. Job 29:18 reads,
Then I said: 'I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the phoenix.'Clement's idea that the phoenix dies and its nest and the returns for a length of days has its origin here.
The Hebrew translation is debated. The Hebrew word chol is typically translated in one of three different ways:
1. sandIn nearly every context, the Hebrew word chol means "sand." We should expect then that to be the Jewish interpretation. But instead, the post-Christian rabbis have almost unanimously interpreted the passage in Job as referring to the mythical bird, the phoenix. The midrashic document the Genesis Rabba or Bereshit Rabba (19:5) explains that Eve gave the cattle, beasts, and birds to eat of [the forbidden fruit]. All obeyed her and ate thereof, except a certain bird named chol, as it is written, Then I said: I shall die with my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the chol. (Job 29:18). The Genesis Rabba was composed no later than A.D. 450. From this point on, Jewish rabbinical scholars (e.g. Rashi) simply assume that Job 29:18 is speaking of the phoenix bird that is able to rise from the ashes. In fact, if you consult almost any Jewish translation of Job, you will find that Job 29:18 has been translated as referring to the "phoenix" and not "sand."
2. phoenix, as in the mythical bird
3. palm tree
-snip-
St. Clement in 1 Clement likely had Job 29:18 in mind because he quotes Job just after describing his chapter on the phoenix (25). He does not quote the Job 29:18 passage directly, but still Clement quotes Job to prove the long expected hope of the resurrection. It is not surprising then to conclude that St. Clement's phoenix sermon illustration for the resurrection of the dead also has its origins in Job.
Reread my post, I believe I said you and those of your faith. I'm sorry, I do not agree that those terms are on the same par as the "n" word.It isn't just me. They are slurs that offend almost all Catholics...just like the "n" word is offensive to people of color.
You're welcome.Good. Thank you for that.
We should forgive without a prerequisite. We should not take offense at other peoples "opinions." We do just as much damage when we do that as when we intentionally offend others. Being offended and walking around with a chip on our shoulders causes us as much pain and turmoil as the offense that we objected to. *NOTICE I SAID "WE."*I include myself in this statement.And if you read back just a little bit you will see that I forgave Standing Up for his use of the word Romish. He was unaware it was an offensive term. He retracted it. He apologized. He was a gentleman about it. He is forgiven.
Please show me where I "defended" the usage of such terms and did so in the fashion you describe below.CJ (and now you),
It is possible that some people use the term and do no intend to offend you, just as when people use the term "Protestant" and mean no offense. However, we all know that when Luther and others broke away from a church that was becoming corrupt and misrepresenting some of what Scripture taught, the people who labeled those they considered to be dissenters and guilty of heresy as Protestants, the term was used in a derogatory manner. But, call me a Protestant all day long and I could care less.on the other hand, defended the use of the term
Are you sure you are quoting Josiah correctly? Is this the exact argument he made? Did he actually say that this/those term(s) are "commonly used derisively by rabid anti-Catholics?" Or is this a typical misquote and exaggerated assertion that are of common usage by Catholics when no logical argument comes to mind?and condescendingly told me Catholics don't have the right to be offended by a term that is very commonly used derisively by rabid anti-Catholics.
Nope.Do you defend the public or private use of the "n" word too?
I think the reason is obvious. However, the "n" word is commonly KNOWN to be a derisive term among used by rabid racists. On the other hand, individuals cannot be expected to know what terms will offend the sensibilities of every individual with which they converse.If not, why not?
Well, I find it odd that you would not consider those you claim are "rabid anti-Catholics" to be your "foes" in discussion if nothing else. Besides, though, you may not consider or know someone to be your foe, he still may be. When you wear your emotions on your sleeve, you give him the upperhand. Just some friendly advice from a long time member of GT.#1 - I don't view others in this thread as "foes". The conversation has been, for the most part, pretty civil.
Well, I don't know that you are obligated, but if it makes you feel noble or eases your offended emotions, you can. But, why would you expect rabid anti-Catholics to care if the term offends you?#2 - When people are seemingly unaware that a given term is, in fact, unacceptable, don't I have the obligation to let them know?
Good grief, this comparison is invalid as it is, please don't run it into the ground.#3 - Would you make the same comment to someone who objects to being called a "n" word?
Fine, but there's no need to cater to that kind of mock outrage. It seems something just said for effect. For example, no one could take seriously that "'n" word comparison..
Originally Posted by NewMan99
We aren't a denomination! Are you insulting us, CJ I am, frankly, disgusted by it.
My unseparated brother,
The term "denomination" is not a religious or racial "slur" according to any dictionary known to me. It is a VERY COMMONLY used religious/theological term.
And you KNOW how I define the term because I posted the typical dictionary definitions, noted how I use the term, and you acknowledged that. You KNOW that I use the term in its typical meaning as an association of congregations that come together under a common
Friend, I NEVER said that Catholics are a denomination, I said The Catholic Church is.
So, basically, before we begin a conversation with someone, we should ask them for a list of terms that offend them?You would have ask them on an individual basis.
"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built." --Saint Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368), 2nd Book on the Trinity
"If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the Son of Thunder? What will you say of each of the apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against all the others . . . ? Are not the words addressed to them all?" --Origen, Commentary on Matthew
"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." --Saint Jerome (419 A.D.) 6th Book on Matthew
"Faith if the foundation of the Church. For it was not the person, but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail;' certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell." --Saint Ambrose (397 A.D.)
"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." --Saint John Chrysostom (407 A.D.) 53rd Homily on Saint Matthew
"Christ said to Peter . . . I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas. However, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." --Saint Augustine (430 A.D.) Retractions, 13th Sermon
"I believe that by Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." --Saint Hilary (368 A.D.) 2nd Book on the Trinity
"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his Faith (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church." --Saint Gregory of Nazianzen (390 A.D.) 26th Discourse
"The word 'Rock' has only a denominative value--it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles." -- Saint Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D)
"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdication over Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdication over those faithful who are under them." --First Ecumenical Council, Canon 6
"Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.) De Catholicae Eccesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5
"In the administration of the Church, each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power: as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.)
"If we also say, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, become the Rock. Does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone? whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?" -- Origin, Homily on Matthew XIIx
So, basically, before we begin a conversation with someone, we should ask them for a list of terms that offend them?
Fine, but there's no need to cater to that kind of mock outrage.
A churchman who says his church isn't a denomination--but everyone else's is--is merely attempting to position himself as superior and his church as somehow uniquely genuine.
There is no place for that on any multi-denominational forum, and any individual who pretends to have been insulted by the ordinary use of the English language that can be found in any dictionary is only playacting, IMO.
.
We see the same thing every day when a sacrifice is not supposed to be called a sacrifice, a priest is not really a priest, a church is only an "ecclesial community," a mediator is not really mediating, a Roman Catholic must not be called a Roman Catholic, the Word of God should not be called the Word of God, and a dead person must never be called dead.
... it does seem remarkably one-sided; a double standard.Imagine how the Roman Catholics here would react if the rest of us demanded, under penalty of being accused of being disgusting and offensive, that they never use any terminology, no matter how standard or common unless it's what some Protestant church chooses to use!
I appreciate that most Catholics here are not like this, but it sometimes surfaces with a few of the less secure of them, as in this instance. My humble opinion and request is that we just stop catering to this kind of thing.
I still haven't gotten a satisfactory response from any of the Roman Catholics refuting these quotes. They are pretty clearly worded; whereas, many of the quotes I've read allegedly supporting the papacy actually only prove what the Orthodox believe, which is that sometimes the Patriarch of Rome, as first among EQUALS, was sometimes appealed to in order to help resolve disputes in other regional churches as an arbiter. He was never legitimately given authority over the disputing parties, just the honored position to weigh in on the argument to help in the resolution of the dispute. They twisted the meaning of scripture against the concensus of the Church Fathers, regarding what was meant when Peter's confession was called the Rock of foundation for the Church, suggesting that Christ meant Peter himself, and his successors, would be the Rock or foundation of the Church. This is highly blasphemous really, considering that it usurps Christ's proper position as the only foundation for the Church.
Basil
I still haven't gotten a satisfactory response from any of the Roman Catholics refuting these quotes. They are pretty clearly worded; whereas, many of the quotes I've read allegedly supporting the papacy actually only prove what the Orthodox believe, which is that sometimes the Patriarch of Rome, as first among EQUALS, was sometimes appealed to in order to help resolve disputes in other regional churches as an arbiter. He was never legitimately given authority over the disputing parties, just the honored position to weigh in on the argument to help in the resolution of the dispute. They twisted the meaning of scripture against the concensus of the Church Fathers, regarding what was meant when Peter's confession was called the Rock of foundation for the Church, suggesting that Christ meant Peter himself, and his successors, would be the Rock or foundation of the Church. This is highly blasphemous really, considering that it usurps Christ's proper position as the only foundation for the Church.
Basil
I'm sorry, I do not agree that those terms are on the same par as the "n" word.
Greetings. I understand that myself so I will generally use "RCC" or "RCs" from now on.Translation: Catholics do not have the right to be offended when slurs are directed against them like weapons. It is exactly the same thing as the "n" word. Please do not presume to tell us how we are supposed to feel.
This conversation is pathetic. I am willing to accept the possibility that you were previously unaware that those terms offended Catholics (although how you could be ignorant of this is unfathomable to me). But now you ARE aware - you have been informed. Clearly you would rather rationalize its continued use of it at places like CF (even if you don't personally use them), instead of condemning it - otherwise why are we even debating it right now???
Just drop it. I am going to ignore you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?