Let’s take the case of Polycarp. You will agree with me that the observance of Easter is a Catholic practice. However, Polycarp did not observe Easter. He observed instead the Passover of the Jews, in keeping with the practice of the apostle John. Talking about the differences Polycarp had with Anicetus in Rome on his observance of the Passover as against Rome’s observance of Easter Sunday, Irenaeus wrote: “For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it [the Passover] because he had always observed it with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, who said that he was bound to follow the customs of the presbyters before him” (Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, quoted in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, p.244).
Can Polycarp be considered a Catholic? He could not be. He did not practice the Catholic faith but that of John the apostle. The Catholic faith (the one that sprouted in Rome) called for him to celebrate Easter Sunday, but he did not.
Of course you misrepresent Polycarp with this, but that’s not unusual.
First, the date for Easter is not a matter of dogma, so he can indeed disagree on that and still be exactly what he was. A Catholic saint.
Second, there was no Catholic church “that sprouted in Rome”, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Catholic Church “sprouted” in Jerusalem, in Israel.
Third, Polycarp, was such a good Catholic, that he was infant baptized, which you’d know already if you’d actually read his defense before the proconsul who tried him and offered him release because of his old age if he’d deny Jesus. He was 86 years old at the time. What was his response? (5) Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, “Swear, and I will set thee at liberty, reproach Christ;” Polycarp declared, “Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?”
Are you serious here? The Bible better be accurate in everything that it says – and that includes science – otherwise we can throw it away for it cannot be the Word of God!
So then you are telling us that you believe in the material perspicacity of scripture then? You realize that means that you are asserting that the Bible need no explanation and can be interpreted literally just as anyone reading it in English finds it, right?
Yet that is not even what the New Testament itself says about the scriptures. 2nd Peter 3:15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. 18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.
How can God not know something about science? We say God created the whole vast universe, including our planet earth and all life we see around us. All of these creations require physical laws of science to function. And it was the Creator God who set those laws in motion. It would be ridiculous to even entertain the idea that science is outside the bounds of competence of the Bible, for the Bible is Creator’s very own words.
Faithful Catholics have no problem with the Bible, we simply disagree with your (and whoever fed you those teachings) interpretations of it.
The issue is never about God knowing science…it is about whether the Bible is in any way meant to be a science book. It is not. It is a collection of inspired writings about faith and religion. Nowhere within its pages does it claim to be a science book, a math book, an language book, or anything else but a religion book.
Trying to force “creationism” (which is not science but an idealistic and philosophical way of looking at the world) from the scriptures is just as bad (and is the same error) as the proponents of “evolutionism” and “Darwinism” make.
The Scripture is clear about Noah and Abraham. It does not speak in midrash or parables when relating their stories. And speaking of parables, the true Church of God knows what the parables of Christ mean. It is sure of its interpretation.
Why do I know that? Christ already explained these to His disciples.So you’re going to tell us that the oldest book in the Old Testament, Job, is definitely the retelling of an actual event and cannot possibly be a parable? Same for Jonah? If you say so, but since neither of us was there…
“The true church of God…”? And this is not the Catholic Church in your opinion? Then let me ask you just precisely which one of the literally thousands of n-C faith communities that is, because I know they do not all agree with each other, (or the Bible)?
(Cont’d)
If you want to play you have to work at it! That is the rule. :tsktsk: The Protestants copy and paste copy and paste. The least we could do a little of that also. Not too many original thoughts allowed.
If you do have an original thought please remember to type it slowly so they can understand it!:compcoff: That would be the Christian thing to do! :extrahappy:
**
You are in my prayers!
