Who was Paul?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 19 2005, 06:21 AM'] Since when is the Church a democracy? And since when does the Truth need anything more than teaching?

Why try and change the truth brother Littleles? Unless, of course, you don't like the truth?

Ahhhhh....now we are getting somewhere. Brother Littleles is one of those 60s liberals. He wants his cake and be able to eat it too. He wants to be Catholic, but believe on his own level. Sorry, that simply isn't the case. That simply won't happen.

You have to accept what Holy Mother Church teaches or you don't. If you don't, you dissent. If you do, you believe. If you believe part, you don't accept all that she teaches....that is contrary to being catholic and Catholic. To be catholic is to be universal. To be Catholic is to accept being catholic.

You are so blinded by your own pride....which is to say, "I am right, at all costs, therefore, let's believe what I want to and to hell with the rest of it," that you forget an important part of the universality of the church.

To be truly universal, to be truly catholic, one must submit to those things which are true and deny those things which are not. The Church, because it is Jesus Christ, cannot be wrong. To say anything otherwise is to be wrong.

Sorry, but brother Littleles, you throw your hat in with the Kennedy's and Kerry's of the world and you will (sic, are) being left behind. There is nothing intellectual about your tactics. There is nothing honest about your tactics. This is why I don't engage you any longer, I know what you are. I know what you are trying to do. As I posted earlier, on another thread, you have no intrest in honest conversation. You only have intrest in proving "true believers" wrong.

Your Woodstockian veiw of the Church was wrong in the 60s and it is wrong today. Get over yourself, open your heart to those who can teach you....but I don't think that you can do it. You are too set in your ways. You are fooled, fooled by liberalism. Liberalism in the Church is not being Catholic, it is being less than catholic, it is being narrow minded and obtuse at the same time.

Open your heart, open your soul....assent to the Chuch FIRST. Then debate is allowed. The problem is that metaphysics comes BEFORE epistemology, not the other way around. Modern philosophy doesn't work.....precisely because of that reason.

That is why Decartes (who was a priest) failed. That is why Mill, Kant, and other philosophers fail. That is why Rahner, Curran, Congar, etc...fail.

I would suggest that you read [i]Ethics of Authenticity[/i] by Charles Taylor. It will give you insight into your maladay.....

Cam [/quote]
(1). If you study your Church history, CAM, you will learn that the Church was originally a democracy complete with the popular selection of priests and bishops. But that was lost.

(2) I don't like error masquerading as "truth."

(3) Oh, but I'm afraid intellectually honest Catholics should be required by their consciences to reject error in Church teaching. For example, I believe that any form of slavery is contrary to the natural law. The Catholic Church only recognized this in the 1900's. But some Catholics recognized this much earlier. In fact, one priest was almost defrocked for teaching that slavery was morally wrong.

(4) Once again, I believe one must "dissent" from error. And aren't you confusing the term "universal" with "correct"? In short, its possible to be universally wrong. As in the case of claiming the moral legitimacy of slavery, the condemnation of charging interest, the inferior status of women, the perfidity of the Jews, etc.

(5) It is not "pride" to insist on the truth.

(6) Does being Catholic mean one has to accept what one knows to be in error? If the Pope were to declare ex cathedra that the earth is really flat, must all Catholics then believe that?

(7) If one has "assented" to everything the Church teaches, obviously debate serves no purpose. And the hierarchial church has claimed just that in the past. And a number of traditionalist and very conservative Catholics still believe it.

[LittleLes]

And then there was that Catholic dissenter, a Spanish Dominican, Fr. Bartholomeu De Las Casas, who wrote in 1519: "No one may be deprived of his liberty nor may any person be enslaved."

But this was contrary to Catholic teaching, so he was "silenced."

[Myles Domini]

[url="http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/slavery.htm"]The Popes and Slavery[/url]

Also, I wanted to apologise to you Littleless. I had a lecture with Professor Tuckett today and he confirmed that the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not include 'Son of God' in Mk 1:1.

Now then can you answer my point about Mark's narrative Christology?

Sincerely
Myles

[LittleLes]

But getting back to Paul, lets look at his background which somewhat explains his approach:

(1) Born 3-5 A.D., died 64-67 A.D.

(2) Reared in Cilician city of Tarsus in Asia Minor.

(3) He was the only non-Palestinian apostle.

(4) Claimed to have been a Roman citizen.

(5) Raised in a Hellenistic (Greek), not Jewish, culture.

(6) Claimed to be a Pharisee (ie group focused rigorously on observing Jewish Law but hostile to Rome. Did not have political control at this time).

(7) Paul was exposed to a variety of different religions in Tarsus including Mithraism and Gnosticism.

(8) Claimed to have been taught by Rabbi Gamliel I (who taught in Jerusalem).

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Myles' date='May 19 2005, 10:04 AM'] [url="http://www.church-in-history.org/pages/booklets/slavery.htm"]The Popes and Slavery[/url]

Also, I wanted to apologise to you Littleless. I had a lecture with Professor Tuckett today and he confirmed that the earliest manuscripts of Mark do not include 'Son of God' in Mk 1:1.

Now then can you answer my point about Mark's narrative Christology? 

Sincerely
Myles [/quote]
Hi Myles,

Yes. The earliest manuscripts of Mark 1:1 don't contain the phrase "Son of God." This was added later and some had instead "Son of Abraham." I don't know which interpolation happened first or precisely when they appeared. Thank's for the clarification.

For some reason I can't open "Popes and Slavery." But I think you are referring to Fr. Joel Panzer's article which appears on the EWTN website. As I recall, Fr. Panzer's earliest reference is to a 1435 papal writing which deals with the slave trade, not a condemnation of slavery which he implies. We can analyze this writing if you wish. However, if there are no earlier papal writings condemning slavery, in itself this would implictly admit that for 3/4th of the Church's history, slavery and the slave trade were not countered by the Church.

Would you restate your point about Mark's narrative Christology, and I will endeavor to reply. I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.

Regards,

Little Les

Edited May 19, 2005 by LittleLes

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 19 2005, 09:15 AM'] (1). If you study your Church history, CAM, you will learn that the Church was originally a democracy complete with the popular selection of priests and bishops. But that was lost.

(2) I don't like error masquerading as "truth."

(3) Oh, but I'm afraid intellectually honest Catholics should be required by their consciences to reject error in Church teaching. For example, I believe that any form of slavery is contrary to the natural law. The Catholic Church only recognized this in the 1900's. But some Catholics recognized this much earlier. In fact, one priest was almost defrocked for teaching that slavery was morally wrong.

(4) Once again, I believe one must "dissent" from error. And aren't you confusing the term "universal" with "correct"? In short, its possible to be universally wrong. As in the case of claiming the moral legitimacy of slavery, the condemnation of charging interest, the inferior status of women, the perfidity of the Jews, etc.

(5) It is not "pride" to insist on the truth.

(6) Does being Catholic mean one has to accept what one knows to be in error? If the Pope were to declare ex cathedra that the earth is really flat, must all Catholics then believe that?

(7) If one has "assented" to everything the Church teaches, obviously debate serves no purpose. And the hierarchial church has claimed just that in the past. And a number of traditionalist and very conservative Catholics still believe it. [/quote]
1. I have studied my Church history...remember my degree in Theology? I have talked about it before. My emphasis in undergrad, the early Church Fathers. Specifically the Gregories and Basil.

You are promoting fiction. Sorry. Been there done that.

2. Neither do I, that is why you are being refuted at every turn, by me (in the beginning) and others now.

3. Intellectually honest Catholics are required to reject error....that is why you are being refuted so vehemently. And therein lies your major problem...."I believe...." With our profession of faith, which states, "Credo in unum Deum," we come to understand that the truth lies outside ourselves and it is the greatest and only assent that we can have.

4. Again, your error is shining through.....

5. You're right, but the truth is in front of you, the prideful action is that you refuse to assent to the magisterial teaching of the Church.....

6. No...but being Catholic means that one must accept what the Church teaches.

7. Wrong. When one assents to the Church and begins to probe what is true, he may ask questions.....the problem with you is that you are doing it from a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is bred from a lack of faith, not an organic growth.

If you think that I am a conservative or a traditional Catholic, you are mistaken. I am an orthodox Catholic, nothing more, nothing less.

Cam

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 19 2005, 06:30 PM'] 1. I have studied my Church history...remember my degree in Theology? I have talked about it before. My emphasis in undergrad, the early Church Fathers. Specifically the Gregories and Basil.

[/quote]
Pope Celestine I c 425

"No bishop should be intalled against the will of the people."

Pope Leo I, Letter 10, No 6 c 450

"The consent of the clergy, the testimony of those held in honor, the approval of the orders and the laity should be required. He who is to govern should be chosen by all."

Council of Toledo, 633

"He whom the clergy and the people of his own cityy have not elected, and whom neither the authority of the metropolitan nor the consent of the provincial bishops has chosen - he shall not be bishop."

Pope Leo IX, Synod of Rheims, 1049

"Bishops are to be elected by clergy and people."


Sorry that your theology course was so very weak in early Church history. Perhaps you can demand a rebate?

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 19 2005, 06:30 PM']

6. No...but being Catholic means that one must accept what the Church teaches.

7. Wrong. When one assents to the Church and begins to probe what is true, he may ask questions.....the problem with you is that you are doing it from a skeptical point of view. Skepticism is bred from a lack of faith, not an organic growth.

[/quote]
Perhaps to some being Catholic means that one has to accept whatever the Church teaches in spite of the evidence, but if the teaching is clearly in error, conscience and intellectual honesty should be governing.

Now I get it. You are claiming that one has to accept everything he is told as true. Only then can he ask questions!

Skepticism is well founded what it refuses to accept obvious error as the truth.

LittleLes

[Socrates]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 19 2005, 07:19 PM'] Pope Celestine I c 425

"No bishop should be intalled against the will of the people."

Pope Leo I, Letter 10, No 6 c 450

"The consent of the clergy, the testimony of those held in honor, the approval of the orders and the laity should be required. He who is to govern should be chosen by all."

Council of Toledo, 633

"He whom the clergy and the people of his own cityy have not elected, and whom neither the authority of the metropolitan nor the consent of the provincial bishops has chosen - he shall not be bishop."

Pope Leo IX, Synod of Rheims, 1049

"Bishops are to be elected by clergy and people."


Sorry that your theology course was so very weak in early Church history. Perhaps you can demand a rebate? [/quote]
And what exactly is this supposed to refute? (and what does it have to do with St. Paul?)

ps. Littleles - might want to check out [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=33775"]this thead[/url] on the divinity of Christ.

Edited May 20, 2005 by Socrates

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='May 19 2005, 07:19 PM'] Pope Celestine I c 425

"No bishop should be intalled against the will of the people."

Pope Leo I, Letter 10, No 6 c 450

"The consent of the clergy, the testimony of those held in honor, the approval of the orders and the laity should be required. He who is to govern should be chosen by all."

Council of Toledo, 633

"He whom the clergy and the people of his own cityy have not elected, and whom neither the authority of the metropolitan nor the consent of the provincial bishops has chosen - he shall not be bishop."

Pope Leo IX, Synod of Rheims, 1049

"Bishops are to be elected by clergy and people."


Sorry that your theology course was so very weak in early Church history. Perhaps you can demand a rebate?

Perhaps to some being Catholic means that one has to accept whatever the Church teaches in spite of the evidence, but if the teaching is clearly in error, conscience and intellectual honesty should be governing.

Now I get it. You are claiming that one has to accept everything he is told as true. Only then can he ask questions!

Skepticism is well founded what it refuses to accept obvious error as the truth. [/quote]
Try formal theology.....it beats the cracker jack box that you are studying from.

I mean seriously how can we take seriously someone who can't spell? Intalled? Rather, then Rathner....you are infamous. Very scholarly.

So, exactly what did Pope Leo mean by "intalling" someone.....accuracy? Whatever.

And the Pope chooses bishops. The Pope speaks for all in the Catholic Church. For where Peter is, there is the Church. I know you don't accept that, but c'est la vis. It is true whether you accept it or not.

There is no inconsistency between Pope Leo, the Council of Toledo, etc., and the Church.

Get over yourself.

No, actually, being Catholic is a matter of assenting one's will to the Church. For the Church is objective in her truth, not subjective. There is no spite, except from you 60s liberal types.

I have never made the claim that you ascribe to me. I state that one must assent his will to the truth. Then, in the light of that truth, he may question, in order to learn, not disprove. Precisely because one cannot disprove truth.

Skepticism is never well founded. You are a fool if you think so.

Cam

[Myles Domini]

By Mark's narrative christology I meant Mark's literary device of confirming Jesus' divine paternity through the literay technique of having it mentioned on the lips of the most trusted witnesses (supernatural beings and God) and appear in the story at key moments i.e. Jesus' baptism, transfiguration and trial, so that the narrative allows the term to take on a new meaning which ultimately is revealed on the Cross where Jesus is proclaimed 'Son of God' by the Centurion as the temple veil rips in the Holy of Holies to reveal God's presence to man in the broken body of His Son. Illustrating quite clearly that this evangelist was under no illusions as to who he thought Jesus was (God is revealed and seen in Jesus) and contradicting your statement that the evangelists didnt believe in Jesus' divinity.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 19 2005, 07:58 PM'] Try formal theology.....it beats the cracker jack box that you are studying from.

I mean seriously how can we take seriously someone who can't spell?  Intalled?  Rather, then Rathner....you are infamous.  Very scholarly.

So, exactly what did Pope Leo mean by "intalling" someone.....accuracy?  Whatever.

And the Pope chooses bishops.  The Pope speaks for all in the Catholic Church.  For where Peter is, there is the Church.  I know you don't accept that, but c'est la vis.  It is true whether you accept it or not.

There is no inconsistency between Pope Leo, the Council of Toledo, etc., and the Church.

Get over yourself.

No, actually, being Catholic is a matter of assenting one's will to the Church.  For the Church is objective in her truth, not subjective.  There is no spite, except from you 60s liberal types.

I have never made the claim that you ascribe to me.  I state that one must assent his will to the truth.  Then, in the light of that truth, he may question, in order to learn, not disprove.  Precisely because one cannot disprove truth.

Skepticism is never well founded.  You are a fool if you think so.

Cam [/quote]

I prefer the facts of history over Theology 101.

And in unilaterally appointing my bishop, not the original method of selecting bishops, no, the Pope doesn't necessarily speak for me.

And as Cardinal John Newman pointed out:

"One would expect, Newman adds, to find greater corruption in the Catholic Church than in the Protestant Church, for "a Protestant world cannot commit that sin which a Catholic world can." When ordinary human weaknesses are "coupled with that intense absolute faith which Catholics have, and Protestants have not," one finds "acts of inconsistency, of superstition, violence etc. which are not to be looked for external to the Catholic Church. In other words, on the old principle that the corruption of the best is the worst, if the claims of the Catholic Church are anything to go by, one would expect to find in it the greatest scandals. In particular, in regard to the papacy, "where you have power, you will have the abuse of power — and the more absolute, the stronger, the more sacred the power, the greater and more certain will be its abuse." Because, too, the Church is a visible polity, it is also "necessarily a political power, and to touch politics is to touch pitch."

"Coupled with that intense absolute faith which Catholic have," and "acts of inconsistency, of superstition, violence," Did you study Newman in that "formal theology" course?

I've been working on my keyboarding which, as you noted is not good. And I even learned how to "copy and paste." So I can turn out lengthy apologetic tracts without even reading the material. So now I'm well qualified to enroll in Theology 101!

Edited May 20, 2005 by LittleLes

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Myles' date='May 19 2005, 09:42 PM'] By Mark's narrative christology I meant Mark's literary device of confirming Jesus' divine paternity through the literay technique of having it mentioned on the lips of the most trusted witnesses (supernatural beings and God) and appear in the story at key moments i.e. Jesus' baptism, transfiguration and trial, so that the narrative allows the term to take on a new meaning which ultimately is revealed on the Cross where Jesus is proclaimed 'Son of God' by the Centurion as the temple veil rips in the Holy of Holies to reveal God's presence to man in the broken body of His Son. Illustrating quite clearly that this evangelist was under no illusions as to who he thought Jesus was (God is revealed and seen in Jesus) and contradicting your statement that the evangelists didnt believe in Jesus' divinity. [/quote]
My gosh, Myles, a 99 word single sentence!

Permit me to observe the following:

(1) "God seen and revealed in Jesus" does not mean that Mark thought Jesus was divine. We could apply this same phrase to Mother Teresa.

(2) The gospel we call Mark is suppose to have been written about 70 A.D. by John Mark, a companion of Peter, but not a witness to the events described. But we really don't know who the author actually was.

(3) The Jewish concept of "Messiah" does not include the divinity of that person. In fact, that would be objectionable, since they believed "The Lord is One," ie., in a very strict monotheism.

(4) In the synoptic gospels, Jesus never claims to be divine, nor do the writers say that he was. This concept was introduced by Paul and more fully developed by John, who identifies Jesus with the "Word" or gnostic Logos.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='May 19 2005, 07:58 PM'] I mean seriously how can we take seriously someone who can't spell? Intalled? Rather, then Rathner....you are infamous. Very scholarly.
[/quote]
This is a rather unfair statement and not a particularly charitable one I might add. I've known far more intelligent people who couldn't spell, or more reasonably, couldn't type.

I expect more than this level of rebuttal from everyone here on the debate phorum.

[LittleLes]

[quote name='Socrates' date='May 19 2005, 07:28 PM'] And what exactly is this supposed to refute? (and what does it have to do with St. Paul?)

ps. Littleles - might want to check out [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=33775"]this thead[/url] on the divinity of Christ. [/quote]
Hi Socrates,

I was responding to CAMs assertion that bishops were not originally popularly elected rather than being appointed by the Pope.

I agree in responding to CAMS assertions, I am forced to drift off topic. I'll try to avoid that in the future.

You mention that I might want to check out apparently a thread which I can't open. Can you give me the "search" title or the URL? Thanks!

LittleLes