Opinions on the evolution of the Christian (Apostles' and later Nicene's) Creedgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Our belief suystem is always in evolution. Let's take a look at the Apostle's and Nicene's Creedsn origins.Our first Christian creeds:
As it appears before the council of Jerusalem in AD 49 Acts 10 34 And Peter having opened his mouth, said, `Of a truth, I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, 35 but in every nation he who is fearing Him, and is working righteousness, is acceptable to Him; 36 the word that he sent to the sons of Israel, proclaiming good news -- peace through Jesus Christ (this one is Lord of all,) 37 ye -- ye have known; -- the word that came throughout all Judea, having begun from Galilee, after the baptism that John preached; 38 Jesus who [is] from Nazareth -- how God did anoint him with the Holy Spirit and power; who went through, doing good, and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with him; 39 and we -- we are witnesses of all things that he did, both in the country of the Jews, and in Jerusalem, -- whom they did slay, having hanged upon a tree. 40 `This one God did raise up the third day, and gave him to become manifest, 41 not to all the people, but to witnesses, to those having been chosen before by God -- to us who did eat with [him], and did drink with him, after his rising out of the dead; 42 and he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify fully that it is he who hath been ordained by God judge of living and dead -- 43 to this one do all the prophets testify, that through his name every one that is believing in him doth receive remission of sins.' 44 While Peter is yet speaking these sayings, the Holy spirit fell upon all those hearing the word, 45 and those of the circumcision believing were astonished -- as many as came with Peter -- because also upon the nations the gift of the Holy Spirit hath been poured out, 46 for they were hearing them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003
The faith as it was delineated by Paul in Corinthians 151 And I make known to you, brethren, the good news that I proclaimed to you, which also ye did receive, in which also ye have stood, 2 through which also ye are being saved, in what words I proclaimed good news to you, if ye hold fast, except ye did believe in vain, 3 for I delivered to you first, what also I did receive, that Christ died for our sins, according to the Writings, 4 and that he was buried, and that he hath risen on the third day, according to the Writings, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve, 6 afterwards he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain till now, and certain also did fall asleep; 7 afterwards he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 And last of all -- as to the untimely birth -- he appeared also to me, 9 for I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I did persecute the assembly of God, 10 and by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace that [is] towards me came not in vain, but more abundantly than they all did I labour, yet not I, but the grace of God that [is] with me; 11 whether, then, I or they, so we preach, and so ye did believe. 12 And if Christ is preached, that out of the dead he hath risen, how say certain among you, that there is no rising again of dead persons? 13 and if there be no rising again of dead persons, neither hath Christ risen; 14 and if Christ hath not risen, then void [is] our preaching, and void also your faith, 15 and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, whom He did not raise if then dead persons do not rise; 16 for if dead persons do not rise, neither hath Christ risen, 17 and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins; 18 then, also, those having fallen asleep in Christ did perish; 19 if in this life we have hope in Christ only, of all men we are most to be pitied. 20 And now, Christ hath risen out of the dead -- the first-fruits of those sleeping he became, 21 for since through man [is] the death, also through man [is] a rising again of the dead, 22 for even as in Adam all die, so also in the Christ all shall be made alive, 23 and each in his proper order, a first-fruit Christ, afterwards those who are the Christ's, in his presence, 24 then -- the end, when he may deliver up the reign to God, even the Father, when he may have made useless all rule, and all authority and power -- 25 for it behoveth him to reign till he may have put all the enemies under his feet -- 26 the last enemy is done away -- death; 27 for all things He did put under his feet, and, when one may say that all things have been subjected, [it is] evident that He is excepted who did subject the all things to him, 28 and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the Son also himself shall be subject to Him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all. 29 Seeing what shall they do who are baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? why also are they baptized for the dead? 30 why also do we stand in peril every hour? 31 Every day do I die, by the glorying of you that I have in Christ Jesus our Lord:
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
To these was added Chapter I of John's Gospel.(Probably around 60-90 AD)John 1 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God; 2 this one was in the beginning with God; 3 all things through him did happen, and without him happened not even one thing that hath happened. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men, 5 and the light in the darkness did shine, and the darkness did not perceive it. 6 There came a man -- having been sent from God -- whose name [is] John, 7 this one came for testimony, that he might testify about the Light, that all might believe through him; 8 that one was not the Light, but -- that he might testify about the Light. 9 He was the true Light, which doth enlighten every man, coming to the world; 10 in the world he was, and the world through him was made, and the world did not know him: 11 to his own things he came, and his own people did not receive him; 12 but as many as did receive him to them he gave authority to become sons of God -- to those believing in his name, 13 who -- not of blood nor of a will of flesh, nor of a will of man but -- of God were begotten. 14 And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth. 15 John doth testify concerning him, and hath cried, saying, `This was he of whom I said, He who after me is coming, hath come before me, for he was before me;' 16 and out of his fulness did we all receive, and grace over-against grace; 17 for the law through Moses was given, the grace and the truth through Jesus Christ did come; 18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father -- he did declare.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
As it appeared by Eusebius time : before 325 AD2. "As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:--
3. "We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost: "believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, "Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
As defined by theCouncuil of Nicea in 325, becoming the Nicene Creed
"We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:--
"And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead. "And in the Holy Ghost.
"And those who say, 'Once He was not,' and 'Before His generation He was not,' and 'He came to be from nothing,' or those who pretend that the Son of God is 'Of other subsistence or essence (4b),' or 'created' or alterable,' or 'mutable,' the Catholic Church anathematizes."
Complete text of letter of Eusebius at Creeds of Eusebius and Nicea
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
As it appears now as the Nicene CreedThe following is a literal translation of the Greek text of the Constantinopolitan form, the brackets indicating the words altered or added in the Western liturgical form in present use:
We believe (I believe) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man; was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, suffered and was buried; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen."
In this form the Nicene article concerning the Holy Ghost is enlarged; several words, notably the two clauses "of the substance of the Father" and "God of God," are omitted as also are the anathemas; ten clauses are added; and in five places the words are differently located. In general the two forms contain what is common to all the baptismal formulas in the early Church. Vossius (1577-1649) was the first to detect the similarity between the creed set forth in the "Ancoratus" and the baptismal formula of the Church at Jerusalem. Full text Nicene creed discussion.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
Hoping to reference < a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11049a.htm"> Nicene Creed
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
The Precursor of the Apostles' Creed
THE OLD ROMAN CREED AS QUOTED BY TERTULLIAN (c. 200)
De Virg. Vel., 1 Adv. Prax., 2 De Praecept., 13 and 26 (1) Believing in one God Almighty, maker of the world, (1) We believe one only God, (1) I believe in one God, maker of the world, (2) and His Son, Jesus Christ, (2) and the son of God Jesus Christ, (2) the Word, called His Son, Jesus Christ, (3) born of the Virgin Mary, (3) born of the Virgin, (3) by the Spirit and power of God the Father made flesh in Mary's womb, and born of her (4) crucified under Pontius Pilate, (4) Him suffered died, and buried, (4) fastened to a cross. (5) on the third day brought to life from the dead, (5) brought back to life, (5) He rose the third day, (6) received in heaven, (6) taken again into heaven, (6) was caught up into heaven, (7) sitting now at the right hand of the Father, (7) sits at the right hand of the Father, (7) set at the right hand of the Father, (8) will come to judge the living and the dead (8) will come to judge the living and the dead (8) will come with glory to take the good into life eternal, and condemn the wicked to perpetual fire, (9) who has sent from the Father the Holy Ghost. (9) sent the vicarious power of His Holy Spirit, (10) to govern believers (In this passage articles 9 and 10 precede 8) (12) through resurrection of the flesh. (12) restoration of the flesh.
Modern forms II. THE OLD ROMAN CREED
The Catechism of the Council of Trent apparently assumes the Apostolic origin of our existing Creed, but such a pronouncement has no dogmatic force and leaves opinion free. Modern apologists, in defending the claim to apostolicity, extend it only to the old Roman form (R), and are somewhat hampered by the objection that if R had been really held to be the inspired utterance of the Apostles, it would not have been modified at pleasure by various local churches (Rufinus, for example, testifies to such expansion in the case of the Church of Aquileia), and in particular would never have been entirely supplanted by T, our existing form. The difference between the two will best be seen by printing them side by side (Creeds R and T): R. T. (1) I believe in God the Father Almighty; (1) I believe in God the Father Almighty Creator of Heaven and earth (2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; (2) And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; (3) Who was born of (de) the Holy Ghost and of (ex) the Virgin Mary; (3) Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, (4) Crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; (4) Suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; (5) The third day He rose again from the dead, (5) He descended into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; (6) He ascended into Heaven, (6) He ascended into Heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; (7) Sitteth at the right hand of the Father, (7) From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (8) Whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. (8) I believe in the Holy Ghost, (9) And in the Holy Ghost, (9) The Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints (10) The Holy Church, (10) The forgiveness of sins, (11) The forgiveness of sins; (11) The resurrection of the body, and (12) The resurrection of the body. (12) life everlasting.
Neglecting minor points of difference, which indeed for their adequate discussion would require a study of the Latin text, we may note that R does not contain the clauses "Creator of heaven and earth", "descended into hell", "the communion of saints", "life everlasting", nor the words "conceived", "suffered", "died", and "Catholic". Many of these additions, but not quite all, were probably known to St. Jerome in Palestine (c. 380.--See Morin in Revue Benedictine, January, 1904) and about the same date to the Dalmatian, Niceta (Burn, Niceta of Remesiana, 1905). Further additions appear in the creeds of southern Gaul at the beginning of the next century, but T probably assumed its final shape in Rome itself some time before A.D. 700 (Burn, Introduction, 239; and Journal of Theol. Studies, July, 1902). We know nothing certain as to the reasons which led to the adoption of T in preference to R.
III. ARTICLES OF THE CREED
See full detail of Apostle's creed
-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
As I saw it in at a Catholic web page . Text of Apostles ' Creed here.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
My point is that beliefs are in evolution. It started with a man named Abraham. Followed by Joseph, Moses, Samuel, The Prophets of israel, Jesus and his Apostles, the Church Father's ....
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 07, 2003.
Elpidio;
Explain what you are attempting to prove, please. Is there a point to this new thread? Where are we going; what is our goal?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.
Elpidio, Very educational. Thanks. I have a theory that God continues to reveal himself to mankind in inumerable ways through an evolutionary process. As mankind continues to develope, so will our understanding of God and his plan for us,individually, and as a whole. God Bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.
The same question came into my own mind, Eugene.
I think that the poor man just likes to "hear himself talk."
He is not even a Christian, for he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Yet he presumes to post thousands of words -- as a sort of "lecture" to us about the alleged "evolution" of our beliefs (some of which he rejects).Perhaps he is suggesting this rather diabolical idea:
"The beliefs of all you primitive Catholics will evolve into the wonderful creed that I now follow! I am light years ahead of you Catholics, for God reveals things to me directly."
I find the whole thing offensive.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 08, 2003.
A Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the Christ, takes up a cross a follows him, Eugene and John.My first questions for you : which passage(s) parallel these miracles in the synoptic gospels (Mark, Luke, and Matthew) a) The man paralyzed at the pool of Betzatha (John 5). b) A man born blind (John 9) c) Lazarus resurrection ( John 11) d) Mary's anointing (John 12)
d)
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 08, 2003.
You haven't answered the questions; where are you going with this? Knowing what our context ought to be, the question(s) are legit. What about it them?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.
John Placette, May Yahweh bless, and the love of his Son Jesus Christ who died for us to get God's grace be with you always. May God's Holy Spirit guide you in the truth.I can imagine how Abraham felt, John Placette when Abraham was called. He had to leave his family. Hedhad to leave his country. He had to leave his friends. He had to leave his gods behind. Everything when God called him in a dream. I often wonder, what if Abraham had decided not to follow his dream?
Genesis 12 1 And Jehovah saith unto Abram, `Go for thyself, from thy land, and from thy kindred, and from the house of thy father, unto the land which I shew thee. 2 And I make thee become a great nation, and bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. 3 And I bless those blessing thee, and him who is disesteeming thee I curse, and blessed in thee have been all families of the ground.' 4 And Abram goeth on, as Jehovah hath spoken unto him, and Lot goeth with him, and Abram [is] a son of five and seventy years in his going out from Charan.
or when he decided to sacrifice his son Isaac, what if he chose not to foloow his dream? Most of us would not do what Abraham tried to do.
Genesis 22 :: Young's Literal Translation (YLT) 1 And it cometh to pass after these things that God hath tried Abraham, and saith unto him, `Abraham;' and he saith, `Here [am] I.' 2 And He saith, `Take, I pray thee, thy son, thine only one, whom thou hast loved, even Isaac, and go for thyself unto the land of Moriah, and cause him to ascend there for a burnt-offering on one of the mountains of which I speak unto thee.' 3 And Abraham riseth early in the morning, and saddleth his ass, and taketh two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and he cleaveth the wood of the burnt-offering, and riseth and goeth unto the place of which God hath spoken to him.
That is why Abraham is called the Father of all the believers: Jews, Christians ( Roman Catholics, Orthodox, Syrians, Malabarese, Protestant evangelicals(Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists..) ,Baptists, Pentecostals,...Calvary Chapel), Muslims (Sunnis, Shiahs,...), Jehovah's Witnesses, Assembly of Yahweh...
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 08, 2003.
That's quite a roll call. Are they all believers in one truth; or are a great number following ''dreams'' and false prophets? After all, you ought to know, because like Miz Cleo, everything good or bad turns up in your slumber.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.
Ms. Cleo was an actress in a commercial. She and I are not in the same league, Eugene.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 08, 2003.
Elpidio, John G. states that you do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. Is this true? Are you Jewish? A "messianic jew"? If you are stating that human expression (i.e. the way a religious concept is humanly expained) evolves, I have to agree. Humans, hopefully, develope better and better ways to express ideas or explain abstract concepts.How do you explain an omnipotent God and God's relationship to Man? Mankind has been wrestling with that one forever.
If that is not what you are trying to convey, what is it,... briefly? God Bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.
And, Elpidio, Thanks for the blessing. God Bless you, John
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 08, 2003.
OK, and so; That's quite a roll call. Are they all believers in one truth; or are a great number following ''dreams'' and false prophets? After all, you ought to know,because like Miz Cleo,everything good or bad turns up in your slumber.Is it the same unique truth?
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.
Eugene, do you accept Abraham as the father of our faith? If you do, then you have to accept his dreams, If you accept his dreams , you cannot call him a phony even though he didn't know Jesus Christ. Even though he still practiced circumcision. Even though he still worshipped God his way (without a priest) Even though he still had several wives. Even though he was rich. Even though he did no miracles. Even though he talked to God. The end.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 08, 2003.
Hey-- Relax.I asked this about the Orthodox, Syrians, Malabarese, Protestant evangelicals Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, ,Baptists, Pentecostals,...Calvary Chapel, Muslims (Sunnis, Shiahs,...), Jehovah's Witnesses, Assembly of Yahweh..
. . .Whom you say are all children of Abraham. Can they all be united in the same truth? The Jew, Catholic & Moslem can realistically be called Abraham's descendents. Catholics through Christ; and even a segment or two of Christians. But calling the rest of these bogus is not calling Abraham a phony. They are phony children who have rejected the truth. Much as you are; denying a truth revealed by God.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.
Let me add, I haven't denied Abraham and others have not been spoken to by God. Some in apparitions, others by dreams. I believe many Catholic saints have been visited in the same way or ways.I frankly don't believe you are visited by Yave. There's the difference. You may have dreams; but not from God.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 08, 2003.
John Placette. I am not Jewish now. I am not Messianic Jewish. I was born a Roman Catholic. Lived as a Roman Catholic. I worked for the Roman catholic Church.The name Yahweh (pronounced Yavé) was taught to me by a Catholic priest. He even gave me a Catholic Bible which uses the name: La Biblia Latinoamericana. I also have the Jerusalem Bible which uses God's name.
My knowledge of Greek, Latin, Bible commentaries, Church Fathers,... I got it from books given to me by priests.
My kowledge about how to approach scripture, disected it, interpret, allegorize it, analize it, compare it, and so for, I received it from my teachers, Jesuit priests. They taught me to see scripture from all perspectives.
My idea of the relationship among religions I received it from a Catholic priest. He was the first to tell me how the Israelites copied their idea for the Ark of the Covenant from the Egyptians. I found out later he was right.
My first true revelation from God and ofrom Jesus came on July 23, 2000. Before that, I only heard voices since October 1986 about the future.
As to what God wants: the salvation of the human race. That is why he hasn't destroyed this world yet. Even when we have sinned, and continue to sin, no matter if we have been baptized, anointed, saved( as Protestants say), circumcised, prayed everyday,... he still has enough patience to try to lead us in the good path.
As to why Eugene and John G.,and David (from Excite), think I am either a lunatic or a phony, is because I don't follow the Catholic line of revealed revelation. There is another main one that does the best to avoid me. The others are polite, even when they get at me.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 08, 2003.
JmjIt is true, John P, that I vacillate between thinking that Elpidio is mentally disturbed ... or a fraud ... or a recipient of messages from an evil spirit. These are all definite possibilities. The only thing that is impossible is that he is receiving genuine revelations from God.
Please take careful note that Elpidio did not mention a crucial fact to you, probably because he realizes that it will discredit him in your eyes (at least letting you know that God is not revealing things to him). The "crucial fact" is that Elpidio insists that St. Joseph was the biological father of Jesus (who had biological brothers and sisters too). Thus, says Elpidio, Mary was not "ever-virgin" and did not conceive Jesus through the power of the Holy Spirit. God the Father is not Jesus's Father, he says.
Although he has not talked about it at all, I believe that Elpidio attends no Church, because he belongs to no established religion -- i.e., except the religion of which he is the only member. John P, Elpidio is an "apostate" -- i.e., a Catholic who didn't just "fall away" into Protestantism, but left the whole religion called Christianity.
John P, I don't know why Elpidio keeps coming here, since everything he says gets refuted. Maybe God sends him here to help him "revert" to the true faith. Too bad he shows no sign of progress after six months or more. He is a (high school?) math teacher. He sometimes seems to slip into thinking that we are students whom he must lecture here. His act is wearing thin by now. I don't think that a Catholic forum ought to be endlessly exposed to his improper (and sometimes very offensive) ideas. I think that he should leave, rather than keep coming here without sufficient respect for Our Lady.
(Oh, and the design of the Ark of the Covenant was dictated by God himself. It wasn't copied from the Egyptians.)
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.
What you've stated here is all exact and proper, JohnI'm concerned just as you are, that Elpidio doesn't just let us know what's on his mind. He openly contradicts the doctrines of the Church; implying thereby we believe false doctrine.
If it were really false in any way, Elpidio would be doing me & you a service, a favor.
I want to see it conversely: we do HIM the favor humoring him at his artful game. He must be learning as he chews the fat with us, I hope.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 09, 2003.
With all due respect to everyone...If a person's doctrine is solid, why fear anyone for making noise about their particular doctrine?
People who stumble upon this forum perhaps may have similar or heretical issues that need ironing out and may be afraid to reveal those doctrines. Elpidio, obviously, has no fear and in all actuality may be providing those answers through the responses that Catholics can provide. True Catholics will not be swayed by Elpidio. Weak Catholics may finally get answers. I know I thing for sure, emotionalism clouds things.
Let's put glue inside Elpidio's mouth so that he wouldn't rock our boats. Let's hush anybody who is confused. Let's put these people in rocketships and fly them to the moon. Let's bury our heads in the sound. Let's keep our earth flat. Let's remember that the Church isn't gonna burn because of Elpidio. Let Elpidio speak; his words will spark the true truth.
Elpidio, I don't necessarily agree with your every claim, but I do agree with your freedom to make every claim. How else can we learn?
rod. .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 09, 2003.
"...bury our heads in the sound." Huh???Too much music in my life! Let's try "sand".
rod. .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 09, 2003.
Well said Rod I agree entirely. We are all big boys and girls and can take people with a grain of salt. You sure need to pur it on if Im on a rant...but youre a forgiving bunch, thanks!I believe Elpidio to be up front and open with his beliefs with no hidden agendas or evil intenions. He never pushes things on others nor does he attempt to take a superior position. What does it matter if he is no longer Catholic?
All the more reason he should remain here Id have thought.If he is not being delibertly disruptive, contributes intresting and relevant points and shows a willlingness to learn and grown... wheres the problem? Ive sure learnt a bit from him.
Stick around Elpidio !
-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.
Thanks Kiwi and Rod. I always keep an open mind. Truth tends to be lost I believe when political interests get on the way. Ireneus around 155 tried to get the support of the Emperor, Antoninus Pius. Pope Pius I (took the name of the Emperor. He was the first to use the title Pope, before him, only the apostle Paul had used it.). When Emperor Constantine in 325 sided with Athanasius and the Trinatarians, everybody else was banished, their properties confiscated (including books), and if they refused to accept the decisions of the council, executed.Even when Eugene and John have seen that I am a High School teacher, John still doubts it. My students get to see first hand when I am lying, making things up first hand. Only once I have mess up things up. They had fun with me. That was my third period class in 2201-2002.
For Rod: Besides all the students whose deaths, injuries, close encounters with death, broken relationships, romantic matches, and so for I have presicted, here is another interesting case.Last year I was telling one of my students how they were going to win the soccer games. Even if they went into over time, or into penalty kicks. I was right all along. Just like you Rod with the cards, I knew the result. I didn't dream it. These things for me are rare.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 09, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Rod and Kiwi.
Rod, you wrote (beginning with a little sarcasm): "Let's put glue inside Elpidio's mouth so that he wouldn't rock our boats. Let's hush anybody who is confused. Let's put these people in rocketships and fly them to the moon. Let's bury our heads in the sand. Let's keep our earth flat. Let's remember that the Church isn't gonna burn because of Elpidio. Let Elpidio speak; his words will spark the true truth."I realize that your words were written in response to mine -- in which you thought you saw an unjust desire to silence Elpidio. However, as so often happens at this forum, my words were not read with sufficient care, and two other things were not taken into consideration (the duration of Elpidio's visit and the existence of rules at this forum).
Here is what I actually said (with emphasis added so that you don't overlook the key word again): "[Elpidio's] act is wearing thin by now. I don't think that a Catholic forum ought to be endlessly exposed to his improper (and sometimes very offensive) ideas."
In other words, I do not call for the immediate banning of apostates, heretics, and schismatics. I promote the requirement that folks like Elpidio should say goodbye after a reasonable, fixed period of constant objection to our faith, without any sign of conversion. I think that one month is reasonable, though I wouldn't object if one of you insisting on giving a person two or three months. The problem is that -- as I mentioned above -- "Too bad he shows no sign of progress after six months or more." Thus he has exceeded any "reasonable, fixed period of constant objection to our faith." I believe that the forum should not allow objectors to stay beyond a "reasonable, fixed period," for two reasons:
(1) They tend to get more and more prolific, requiring to spend more and more time with increasingly more frustrating refutations.
(2) The more they talk, the greater the chance that they adversely affect lurkers (especially the unchurched and young Catholics who have not learned the Faith well).Rod, I had to smile at this comment you addressed to Elpidio:
"Elpidio, I don't necessarily agree with your every claim, but I do agree with your freedom to make every claim. How else can we learn?"First, Rod, I don't see how you ever agree with any claim he makes. Second, your closing question should have read: "How else can we learn from Eugene and John?" {_8^D)
Kiwi, you wrote:
"I believe Elpidio to be up front and open with his beliefs with no hidden agendas or evil intenions. He never pushes things on others nor does he attempt to take a superior position. What does it matter if he is no longer Catholic?"WHAT??? "What does it matter?" Please assure me that you have not become a religious indifferentist, Kiwi. It matters especially to Elpidio's salvation. It also matters that impressionable people, including his students (and lurkers here) are being led astray by him.
You continued: "All the more reason he should remain here Id have thought. If he is not being delibertly disruptive, contributes intresting and relevant points and shows a willlingness to learn and grown... wheres the problem? Ive sure learnt a bit from him."
The same answer I gave to Rod, above, about the need to have a reasonable time limit, applies here. In fact, I would think that an honest non-Catholic who has no interest in conversion would show his honorable intentions (and respect for the fact that this is a Catholic forum) by voluntarily departing after a reasonable period of time. This forum does not exist for the same person to carry on endless, unproductive chatting and challenging of Catholic beliefs.
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.
[Brief follow-up with one correction and one addition]I left the word "us" out of this sentence, above:
"They tend to get more and more prolific, requiring us to spend more and more time with increasingly more frustrating refutations."Kiwi, in what I quoted from you, you stated (referring to Elpidio): "If he ... shows a willingness to learn and grow ... where's the problem?"
Very good! You have helped to make my point. He has never shown a "willingness to learn and grow." He still holds the same false beliefs that he held on the day he first entered the forum. In other words, what he has "show[n is] a willingness to" do is to proselytize and stagnate -- not "to learn and grow."JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 09, 2003.
John makes the best point here, Guys. Whatever other good ones are made.He says a lot of the unwary get misled when Elpidion saturates these threads with those high- sounding howlers. That's TRUE. And Elpidio usually starts by saying ''[Thanks Kiwi and Rod.] I always keep an open mind. Truth tends to be lost, I believe; when political interests get in the way.''
He proclaims himself the champion of truth, and the Church as some gross puppeteer. The Church, Elpidio, is not a political monstrosity, as you insinuate.
No untruth or deceit can co-exist within her. The Holy Spirit indwells her and our Holy Tabernacle God with us, Emmanuel. Our GRACE in Jesus Christ.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 09, 2003.
Hi everyone.Elpidio hasn't upset my faith, so I do not see him as a threat to me. John does make some excellent points and I must respect his views and not upset the hospitallity given to me. This ain't my house, so I'll follow your rules. It is that simple for me.
I don't believe that any point I make could ever make any significant change in this forum. I'm not here to disrupt or convert anyone, except for Shane X (hee.hee).
I've never been known of being "political", but I guess I've given that impression in this forum. My polite demeanor has made me politcal, maybe?
Before I leave, as I feel that I can relate to Elpidio when it comes to my faith in the Catholic Church, I would like to know exactly what Elpidio is wanting from this forum or the Church. I wonder if he wants the same things that I want.
1. Is it absolutely 100% the One True Church of God? Yes, I've read every answer in this forum that man has researched or interpreted or believed.
2. Are the Church Traditions ulterior motives of the Church or are they truly sacred? Yes, this hits to some of the roots of the Church and I'll get flak over this.
3. Can I truly ever return to the Church or am I pretty much out?
Elpidio? Are we pretty much walking on common ground?
I would love the have the Church open its doors and hold out her arms in forgiveness and say that everything will be o.k., don't worry about the mess in my soul. I know Jesus has.
Why does the Church have to be so complicated?! My mind and soul isn't. I've asked for forgiveness and suffered for my sins.
You all are good people and I have been blessed with knowing you all.
God be with you.
rod. . . .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 09, 2003.
>> Pope Pius I (took the name of the Emperor. He was the first to use the title Pope, before him, only the apostle Paul had used it.The book _The Catholic Church: A Short History_ by Hans Kung has a different version of history:
Bishop Siricius [of Rome] (384-99) was the first to call himself "pope." Papa (from the Greek pappas) was a reverent, loving name for "father," long used of all bishops in the East; the process of a Roman monopolization of titles originally belonging to many churches and bishops had begun.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 09, 2003.
''Roman monopolization'', good for brownie points at the revival tent. There is nothing new under the sun.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 09, 2003.
rod, the good and the great will correct what i have to say on this very very important matter if i stray -- but, if you have indeed read all the great and undeniable testaments to the Catholic Church that are present on this website, and if you have done so with an open mind, and yet despite all this and your clearly lucid knowledge of Christianity, you still remain unmoved, then surely you are cutting through the salvific lifeline that our Church throws out to non-Catholics."Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse to enter it or to remain in it."
i suggest that you go see a priest and make a good confession as a matter of urgent priority.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 11, 2003.
Jmj
Hello, Mark.Hello, Rod and Eugene. Thanks for the nice things you said about my previous post.
Rod, you asked:
"Why does the Church have to be so complicated?! My mind and soul isn't."The Catholic Church is the Communion of Saints -- people in heaven, in purgatory, and on Earth. So, if we are talking about a divine/human organization that consists of over a billion people on Earth today, plus perhaps a billion who have gone on ahead of us ... and if we are talking about the passage of almost 2,000 years ... it is pretty much impossible for the situation not "to be so complicated"! Add to these numbers the fact that we have divine revelation in difficult-to-interpret forms (Scripture and Apostolic Tradition), and the "complicat[ions]" mount.
Nevertheless, it is good that you say, "My mind and soul [aren't complicated]." None of us is required to understand all (or even a lot) of the "complicated" facets of the Church. We can stick to "meat-and-potatoes" basics and still please God greatly. However, we can't try to "strip down" things even farther, in such a way that we end up ignoring one or more of those "basics." For example, someone may fall into the "Jesus-'n'-me" fallacy and decide to stop attending Mass each Sunday. Worshiping with our Catholic brothers and sisters and receiving the Sacraments are two of the "basics" that we can't ignore.
Mark, please be very careful in your reading. It is dangerous to read the works of Hans Kung (who is almost certainly a heretic) without realizing that he has a very open goal of convincing Catholics not to believe various things that the Church teaches. I wouldn't quote him about anything, because so much he writes can't be trusted, and because I wouldn't want to "plug" his works here (potentially attracting the unsuspecting to read them).God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.
Mind and soul are one. One isn't complicated.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.
John,>> I wouldn't quote him about anything, because so much he writes can't be trusted, and because I wouldn't want to "plug" his works here (potentially attracting the unsuspecting to read them).
Sorry, it was the only source that I had about which Pope used the title first. I didn't realize that there would be a controversy about quoting his work of history as opposed to one of his works of theology.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.
JmjHello, Mark.
I responded as I did mainly because I couldn't tell if you were aware of the fact that Fr. Kung has had big problems with the Church. I wanted to protect you and others from his negative influence.I wouldn't have seen anything wrong with quoting his statement about something factual (as you did), except that he also slipped in a snide and unnecessary remark ("Roman monopolization"). He can't even mention a straight fact without exhibiting his disdain for the Vatican, which justifiably took away his mandate to function as a theologian.
The fact about Pope Siricius can be found, not just in Kung, but also in the article entitled "Pope, The" in the old Catholic Encyclopedia (here).
The article goes beyond the phrase used by Fr. Kung, as follows:"The title pope (papa) was ... at one time employed with far more latitude. In the East it has always been used to designate simple priests. In the Western Church, however, it seems from the beginning to have been restricted to bishops (Tertullian, "De Pud." 13). It was apparently in the fourth century that it began to become a distinctive title of the Roman Pontiff. Pope Siricius (d. 398) seems so to use it (Ep. vi in P. L., XIII, 1164), and Ennodius of Pavia (d. 473) employs it still more clearly in this sense in a letter to Pope Symmachus (P. L., LXIII, 69). Yet as late as the seventh century, St. Gall (d. 640) addresses [Bishop] Desiderius of Cahors as papa (P. L., LXXXVII, 265). [Pope St.] Gregory VII [d. 1085] finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter."
God bless you.
John
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.
John,Thanks for the pointer to the more detailed information on the use of the Pope title. Before I posted the Kung quotation, I had looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Pope St. Siricius, but unfortunately I couldn't find anything relevant there.
Since we are talking about Hans Kung, the main thrust of his _The Catholic Church: A Short History_ seems to be that (1) he isn't happy with the way the Catholic Church is now; (2) the Church wasn't always the way it is now; so (3) there is no reason that it can't be that way again. If you know of any refutations of his arguments, or any list of inaccuracies in his historical facts, I'd be very interested in hearing about it.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003.
mark, my reading of Kung's book suggests that your point (2) is the wrong way round. he is neither happy with the present Church nor was he happy with things the way they were. i believe he thinks that the Church moved away from Christian values around 200 AD or so.if you want an example of the inaccuracies in the book, see the way he continually labels Pius XII as anti-Semitic. i have copied this direct from another thread on this website as it more accurately touches upon the point:-
"Here is a little information about what The Church did during WWII. Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical called "Mit Brennender Sorge." It was the only encyclical written in German. It directly speaks out against the Nazis. Pope Pius XII spoke out too. But not after the war stated. Pius XII forged many baptismal documents so Jews would be thought of as Catholic so that their lives would be saved. He instruced monestaries to take in Jews and hide them. Some Jews were asked after the war if he should have spoken out and they said no! Why? Because, they said, it saved their lives! Wow!! Also the Prime Minister thanked Pius XII at his funeral mass. Pius XII was truly a saint."
go to any trustworthy website and you will see Jews attesting to the good things that the Church did during the war. go to unreliable sites, or read unreliable books, and you will start to see Kung's point.
having said all this, he has at least remained within the Church (although one wonders why, given his views) -- if only Luther had done the same.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2003.
Ian,>> my reading of Kung's book suggests that your point (2) is the wrong way round. he is neither happy with the present Church nor was he happy with things the way they were. i believe he thinks that the Church moved away from Christian values around 200 AD or so.
I think we are saying the same thing, e.g., he was happy with the Church before 200 AD.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 12, 2003.
Ian,I looked ahead to the chapter on WWII. (So far in my reading, I'm only at the Reformation.) I don't see a direct factual conflict between what you wrote and what Hans Kung wrote:
Certainly Pius XI himself was a resolute opponent of the Nazis and refused to receive Hitler in the Vatican. He condemned National Socialist doctrine, politics, and the violation of the concordat in his German-language encyclical Mit brennender Sorge, "With Burning Concern" (1937). An encyclical against racism and anti-Semitism was being prepared. But Pius XI died a few months before the outbreak of the Second World War. His successor was that selfsame secretary of state, Eugenio Pacelli, who had been able to negotiate an apparently shrewd concordat with Hitler. The encyclical against racism and anti-Semitism which had been prepared was pigeonholed.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 12, 2003.
Kung has a very low opinion of Pius XII. he accuses him of being anti-Semitic and of standing by as the Jews were murdered en masse in the Holocaust. he considers Pius XII unworthy of beatification.however, this particular Kungism is very easy to de-bunk. there are countless sources wherein Jews express their thanks for the way in which Pius conducted himself during WWII. just look at some of the threads on this website or do you own research on the net.
protestant sources shamefully use the Holocaust as a way of attacking the papacy. you will find Jewish sites that think otherwise.
i mentioned this Kungism as it is an easy one to analyse. but sadly it is just the tip of the iceberg. he doubts Petrine succession, wants women ordained and priests married, blames the Church as much as Luther for the Reformation, clearly thinks that John XXIII was the only modern Pope worth having, considers John Paul II a great showman but a poor Pope, .......
in fact, i would approach everything he says with a great deal of caution.
-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 12, 2003.
Perhaps a new thread should be started about Pope Pius XII. An interesting interview with Rabbi David Dalin answers many of Pius's critics http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=9177I don't know how to make the above address clickable. If anyone can tell me how I'll try to post it so its easier to get to.
-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), May 13, 2003.