text:
Skip to comments.Essays for Lent: Papal Infallibility
Posted on 03/05/2012 7:52:29 PM PST by Salvation
Papal Infallibility
by Sebastian R. Fama
The issue of Papal Infallibility evokes strong reactions from those who oppose it. This is usually due to a misunderstanding of what the Church means by "Papal Infallibility." The most common misconception is that the Church claims that the pope himself is infallible, that in all things he is incapable of error. This, of course, is not true!
It is a necessity of Christian theology that every person be allowed the exercise of free will. Everyone, the pope included, must be free to accept or reject Christ for himself. If God were to make the pope infallible in the ultimate sense, he would be depriving him of his free will.
Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners.
Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does--he studies.
Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8).
Infallibility does not mean that a pope cannot err when he speaks as a private teacher. As a man he is fallible and capable of error.
Infallibility does not guarantee that a pope will officially teach anything. However, when he does teach he is protected. If he decides to teach the truth, the Holy Spirit allows it. If he decides to teach error, either knowingly or unknowingly, the Holy Spirit will stop him.
Infallibility is not something that endows a pope with divine powers, but rather it is a gift of the Holy Spirit that protects the Church from the human frailties of a pope.
All Christians believe that God used men infallibly in writing Scripture. Why then is it so hard to believe that He would work through men to protect it from corruption? Surely such a protection was implied when Jesus said to His disciples, "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16).
The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:
1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.
The first two conditions can be reasonably deduced from Matthew 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." The acts of binding and loosing in the context of the verse would by necessity be something more than casual remarks. The passage begins with Jesus saying, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church" (16:18). The acts of binding or loosing would have to be official and meant for the whole Church.
The third condition stems from the obvious fact that Christian teaching is primarily a matter of faith and morals. Christianity's main objectives have always been getting people to heaven (faith) and teaching them how to live here on earth (morals).
Infallibility is also extended to the college of bishops when they, as a body, teach something in union with the pope. Collegial authority is usually exercised in an ecumenical council just as it was at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29).
Upon leaving the earth Jesus' final command to His apostles was to make disciples of all nations, "teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age" (Matthew 28:20). Are we to believe that Jesus left us no means of knowing exactly what He commanded? That would make His parting statement nonsense. The Catholic Church believes the Bible when it teaches that:
1. Jesus requires that we obey all that He commanded (Matthew 28:20).
2. Jesus gives us the grace to obey all that He commanded (Philippians 4:13).
3. Jesus provides us a means of knowing what He commanded (Matthew 16:15-19).
Early Christian writers bear witness to the Church's infallibility. Cyprian declares: "If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, 251 AD). Irenaeus writes: "Where the charismata of the Lord are given, there must we seek the truth, with those to whom belongs the ecclesiastical succession from the Apostles, and the unadulterated and incorruptible word. It is they who are the guardians of our faith and securely expound the Scriptures to us" (Against Heresies 4:26:5, 180-199 AD).
Despite the evidence, critics try to prove their case by appealing to three supposed examples of popes teaching error. The first two are Pope Liberius (352-366) and Pope Vigilius (537-555). Both were made to sign questionable statements of faith while under duress. This of course does not count, as Infallibility only applies to free acts of the pope and not to acts under torture.
The third example is that of Pope Honorius (625-638). Critics of Papal Infallibility feel that this example demolishes the doctrine once and for all. Here, they contend, is an example of a pope teaching error. After his death, an ecumenical council (The Third Council of Constantinople) condemned him. What could be more contradictory than an infallible pope being condemned by an infallible council? However, in their excitement the critics have overlooked something -- the facts.
The controversy stems from a letter that Pope Honorius wrote to Sergius, a Monothelite heretic. The Monothelite heresy maintained that Jesus had only one will, a divine will. The Church had always taught that Jesus was fully God and fully man. As such, He had both a divine and a human will. Before the heresy was widely known, Sergius sought to get the pope's approval by deception. In a letter to the pope he stated that Jesus never opposed the Father. Consequently, if two persons agree they may be spoken of as being of "one will." The pope, unaware of Sergius' deception, answered to the subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. He wrote in part: "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ Since Christ's human will is faultless there can be no talk of opposing wills." Subsequently, Monothelites fraudulently used this statement as proof that the pope believed with them that Christ had no human will.
Pope Honorius was deceived and then misrepresented. Furthermore, the Third Council of Constantinople condemned him for inaction, but not for teaching heresy. In any event, his letter was private. Thus the issue of infallibility never even entered the picture. By the way, if papal infallibility really was just a human invention, don't you think that the list of errors after 20 centuries would fill at least one book? And yet we are presented with only three examples, three examples that are not even plausible. Does this not speak in favor of the Church's position?
Ironically, many of the individuals who oppose the doctrine of papal infallibility claim to receive special revelations from God. Most believe that they can privately interpret Scripture in direct violation of 2 Peter 1:20. They characterize the doctrine of papal infallibility as arrogant, while claiming for themselves authority that goes far beyond it. And what is the fruit of their claims? Thousands of denominations all claim the Bible as their authority and yet all disagreeing on what it teaches. To make matters worse, many of their teachings change from time to time. Those who object to the doctrine of papal infallibility are the greatest proof of its need.
An honest examination of the evidence can only lead to one conclusion: That Jesus Christ established an infallible Church. Scripture teaches it, logic demands it, and history confirms it. Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
Copyright © 2001 StayCatholic.com
For Further Study
The Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of Rome (Free)
The Early Church Fathers on Peter's Presence in Rome (Free)
Books - The Gift of Infallibility by Rev. James T. O'Connor and The Primacy of the Church of Rome by Margherita Guarducci and Upon This Rock by Stephen Ray and Pope Fiction by Patrick Madrid and The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue
DVD - Footprints of God: Peter with Stephen Ray
**The First Vatican Council taught that three conditions must be met in order for a pronouncement to be considered infallible:
1. The pope must speak ex cathedra (from the Chair of Peter) in his official capacity.
2. The decision must be binding on the whole Church.
3. It must be on a matter of faith or morals.**
Catholic Ping!
Catholic Ping!
"Infallibility does not mean that a pope is incapable of sin. All popes are human and therefore sinners."
"Infallibility does not mean that the pope is inspired. Papal infallibility does not involve any special revelation from God. A pope learns about his faith in the same way that anyone else does—he studies."
Except if you are Pope Alexander VI, then you can just get it through purchase at regular market cost.
"Infallibility cannot be used to change existing doctrines or proclaim new ones. It can only be used to confirm or clarify what has always been taught. The teachings of Christ cannot change. As the Scripture says, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8)"
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary are quite recent, and they are "new" dogmas that were proclaimed. They were never historically taught before. The Pope had a vision from Mary herself, also discussing the Brown Scapular as a ticket out of purgatory, provided you wear it, practice chastity, and pray the Rosary. Purgatory is another new doctrine. So is infant baptism, when the Biblical practice was baptism of a believer who was fully immersed.
The other doctrine, of course, is the one being discussed. Infallibility. The Apostles were all gifted with help of the Holy Spirit, and saw Christ Himself and in visions the doctrines of which they were to preach. Peter was not "infallible," but was even rebuked by Paul for his mistake in following the lead of the Jewish converts who insisted on following the Jewish ritual law.
Paul, through the power of the Holy Spirit, was used as God's messenger to blind a magician. Each of the Apostles "bound whom they will," or received prophecy, or received divine knowledge of the hearts of others, and spoke as God directed, and led the early Christian Churches they established across the world according to God's plan.
The "Rock" of the Church is not Peter, but the confession he gave, which is Christ. Christ is the chief cornerstone, and we are all "living" stones of that chief stone. Here are Peter's words on the true meaning of Christ's teachings, given by Peter as only Peter could, as it was Peter who was made a living example of Christ's teachings:
1 Peter 2
Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
According to the Dictatus Papae, the Pope is supreme. He can command princes. He can bring down emperors. The Pope cannot even be judged!: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
The modern view is the moderate view. It is not the historical view. It is definitely not the Biblical view.
A lot of people confuse impeccability (lack of sin) with infalibility. They are not the same.
Popes go to confession too.
The 62 Errors of the Roman Catholic Church
The Rise of Rome in a Nutshell
The Official Roman Catholic Policy of Obstruction of Justice
Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition
Contradictions in Roman Catholicism
The Magesterial Cat and Mouse Game
The Infallible List of the Infallible Teachings of Rome
The Roman Catholic Hermeneutic
Historical Literature on the Earliest Papacy
You wrote:
"The Rock of the Church is not Peter, but the confession he gave, which is Christ."
Nope. According to Greek syntax it is Peter.
Vlad, you are correct, but remember, with protestants, things have to be twisted and distorted from the clear meaning, in this example......the obvious meaning of 'rock' is Peter...historically, it has been Peter, but that has to be done away by any and all means.....itz a shame.
They were always a part of authentic Christian faith, that were not expressed formally.
A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on 9 December perhaps as early as the 5th century. Note that the title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception. By the 7th century the feast of her conception was widely celebrated in the East, under the name of the Conception (active) of Saint Anne. In the West it was known as the feast of the Conception (passive) of Mary, and was associated particularly with the Normans, whether these introduced it directly from the East or took it from English usage. The spread of the feast, by now with the adjective "Immaculate" attached to its title, met opposition on the part of some, on the grounds that sanctification was possible only after conception.
Wiki (links at source)
Although the Assumption (Latin: assūmptiō, "taken up") was only relatively recently defined as infallible dogma by the Catholic Church, and in spite of a statement by Saint Epiphanius of Salamis in AD 377 that no one knew whether Mary had died or not, apocryphal accounts of the assumption of Mary into heaven have circulated since at least the 4th century. The Catholic Church itself interprets chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation as referring to it. The earliest known narrative is the so-called Liber Requiei Mariae (The Book of Mary's Repose), which survives intact only in an Ethiopic translation. Probably composed by the 4th century, this Christian apocryphal narrative may be as early as the 3rd century. Also quite early are the very different traditions of the "Six Books" Dormition narratives. The earliest versions of this apocryphon are preserved by several Syriac manuscripts of the 5th and 6th centuries, although the text itself probably belongs to the 4th century. Later apocrypha based on these earlier texts include the De Obitu S. Dominae, attributed to St. John, a work probably from around the turn of the 6th century that is a summary of the "Six Books" narrative. The story also appears in De Transitu Virginis, a late 5th century work ascribed to St. Melito of Sardis that presents a theologically redacted summary of the traditions in the Liber Requiei Mariae. The Transitus Mariae tells the story of the apostles being transported by white clouds to the deathbed of Mary, each from the town where he was preaching at the hour. The Decretum Gelasianum in the 490s declared some transitus Mariae literature apocryphal.
St Thomas receiving the Virgin Mary's girdle An Armenian letter attributed to Dionysus the Areopagite also mentions the event, although this is a much later work, written sometime after the 6th century. John of Damascus, from this period, is the first church authority to advocate the doctrine under his own name...
Wiki (links at source)
the Pope is supreme. He can command princes. He can bring down emperors. The Pope cannot even be judged!
I surely hope so. But that is not in the meaning of infallible.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
@Apollo - Only just took a short break, so a longer answer will have to wait, but two quick points:
But yet the Pope is called Holy Father.
All priests are called Father, as they are responsible for the welfare of their flock in the same manner that a father is responsible for his family. The more usual title for the Pope is His Holiness.
The Pope cannot even be judged!
God judges us all. Popes confess too, forcing them to confront their failings, at least in their own minds. Someone once said, in a joking way, that God had to send us his Son as the way, since Heaven was still empty and Hell was getting full.
Thanks for the link the last time we talked. Some good stuff in there to ponder on. FReegards!
Holy Tradition has been alive since the before the Bible.
Tradition in the Catholic Church isn't customs as most people think, but the Word of God handed down one person to another.
St. Paul, St. John make references to Tradition with a big T in the Bible
So post some of this word of God handed down outside of the scriptures...And of course you can't because it never existed...And that leaves your tradition as nothing more than invented customs made up by your religion...
In between lying Hit pieces on the Early Church Fathers "Webster" models clothing because He could not make it as a scholar.
VERY Weird that after his Writing on Augustine I can not find these verses.
Augustine of Hippo:
Letter 53 (A.D. 400) For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius..
Notice successor of Peter.
HE is either an Idiot or a Definite Deceiver. No way this man can be called legitimate. Anyone can gerry pick verses to make it what they want. Out of all that glop he could not put that in for a reason.
The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter/Rome
The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peters authority was a rejection of Christs authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19).
Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18-19]. ... Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head that is why he is also called Cephas of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).
Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: "You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . ." Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
The Early Church Fathers on
Peters Presence in Rome
Some contend that Peter couldnt have been the bishop of Rome because he was never in Rome. This of course runs counter to the testimony of the Early Fathers and Scripture. In 1 Peter 5:12-13 Peter says: I write you this briefly through Silvanus, whom I consider a faithful brother, exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Remain firm in it. The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son. Babylon is a code word for Rome and is used elsewhere in Scripture to mean the same thing. Examples can be found in Revelation 18:2, 18:10 and 18:21.
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (ibid 3:3:2).
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).
Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).
Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).
The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
As usual you are spot on, but it was more than just syntax. It was the context and content in which He used the syntax of the Rock. The Gospels tell us exactly how and why Jesus determined that His Church would be lead by a Pope as chosen His form of Church governance and that the first Pope was Peter.
God has always chosen a single man to guide His Church and He has guided and protected that person through public and private Revelation. This was true of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Joseph, Moses, Solomon, David and the many judges, kings and prophets that followed. It would be true of His Church too.
In His revelation Jesus specifically discussed the three possible forms of Church governance; the Democratic form, the Oligarchical form, and the Theocratic form before revealing His choice.
In this dialog Jesus asks His Disciples; "Who do the people say that I am?" (Matt 16:16). This was the Democratic option. He got answers varying from Elijah, to John the Baptist, to "One of the Prophets", but no clear, unambiguous or truthful answer. He then asked His Apostles; "Who do you say that I am?". This was the oligarchical form. None responded. These two forms were unambiguously rejected.
Then Peter stepped forward and without consulting the others said; "You are the Christ, the son of the living God.". In response to this Jesus revealed the basis and governance of His Church when He said:
Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. (Matt 16:17-19)
Haven't heard the argument in #20 before. Very compelling and insightful. Thank you!
Its from the Archbishop Fulton Sheen Catechism.
Hold on tight, it's gonna be a bumpy thread!
"Vlad, you are correct, but remember, with protestants, things have to be twisted and distorted from the clear meaning, in this example......the obvious meaning of rock is Peter...historically, it has been Peter, but that has to be done away by any and all means.....itz a shame."
No such doctrine exists in the Bible, and Peter himself in Acts as well as in 2 Peter calls Christ the cornerstone, and themselves and all believers as "lively stones." It was a "illustrated lesson," using Peter's name, which means a "rock," and directed him to the rock of the Church, which is Christ, the foundation of the church. Peter was never exalted over the other Apostles, nor did he ever exalt himself over them. All performed the same functions. There is, similarly, no indication that the Apostles as an office would ever pass into the future. There were not 12 rival popes... their task was handed off to the rest of us collectively, to preach the Gospel against the enemy of this world, picking up where the Apostles left off.
The Primacy of Rome was a later invention.
Please read post #20 in this thread.
I am too busy at the moment to demolish you guys in this thread. Please have patience for my answer for later. I started a new job, and I've been getting up at 6am in the morning everyday, and I also still have many other duties to attend to.
It sucks not being unemployed anymore. LOL
Your evaluation of that scripture seems legitimate until a deeper examination of the words Christ used shows otherwise. Lets look at what He said.
Matt 16:18
You are "Petros" (a stone or a rock) and upon this "Petra" (a rock, cliff or ledge - a projecting rock, crag or rocky ground) I will build my church.
There is a difference in the Greek words used, their usage and meaning of the word translated "rock" as can be seen by the following:
Please compare to Isaiah 44:8
Is there a God beside me? yea, no "tsuwr"; I know not any.
TSUWR: rock, cliff. rocky wall, cliff.
PETRA: rock, cliff or ledge.
PETROS: a stone or a rock.
Note also the usage of the word TSUWR in Isaiah 8:14
And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock (TSUWR) of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
This passage is repeated in the NT: Romans 9:33 and 1 Peter 2:8. In both cases the Greek word used is Petra in place of the Hebrew Tsuwr. The same Petra (the "rock, cliff or ledge") upon which Christ told Peter He would build His church. We can then determine that the rock in Isaiah and the rock in 1 Peter and the rock upon which Christ would build His church are one and the same. This agrees with God's assessment that there is no other rock (TSUWR in Hebrew or PETRA in Greek) beside Him.
Petra is also used to illustrate hearing and doing the words of Christ to the man who built his house on the Petra. Tsuwr is used often in the OT to refer to God as a rock of salvation. All implications of a very large stone capable of being built upon.
Examining the other side of the word for rock, we find that Petros is used exclusively as a name for Peter save for only one time that it is translated "rock" in John 1:42 when Jesus called Peter to be his disciple.
That is the context and content regarding the Petra upon which Christ would build His Church.
It is clear to these protestant eyes that Jesus was by no means calling Peter (Petros) the rock upon which the church was to be built but was actually referring to Himself (Petra). He would otherwise contradict Isaiah 44:8 which states there is no other Rock besides God (translated Petra in Greek). This is echoed by Peter himself when he declared that Petra is the rock that causes men to stumble.
In conclusion:
Petra = Jesus Himself, upon which the church is built. No other God besides Petra according to Peter when he quoted Isaiah 44:8.
Petros = Peter, sometimes translated rock according to John.
"demolish' LOL!!!
WE believe in Bible only? But go to outside sources to Prove its not only by going to other people books or sources to declare the farce of Bible Only.
Our actions dictate "invention of primacy" from outside sources of bible. Real history shows otherwise not revised history. Also how would you know its outside the bible when how dare you go outside for so called authority sources. When "the Bible is the only authority" . Hello?
When people declare that The Catholic Church has no right but then go to an outside authority to declare not same for Catholic Church.
Like what about Christ put the Holy Spirit in the Day of Pentecost then the Apostles laid hands on believers.
Acts 6
The Choosing of the Seven
1 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, Who Prayed and Laid their hands on them.
7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of PRIESTS became obedient to the faith.
All the priests put hands on each other and back from bishops to priests. This has been going on for two thousand years since the days of ACTS 6. THE Bishop explains this at every ordination. HMMMM
Luke writes these because it is stupid I guess by the Holy Spirit about a church lasting any length told by a Jewish leader. The Church for Two Thousand Years.
34 But a Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in honor by all the people, stood up and gave orders to put the men outside for a little while.
35 And he said to them, Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. 36 For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing.
37 After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too Perished, and all who followed him were Scattered.
38 So in the present case I tell you, Keep Away from these men and let them alone, for IF this Plan or this undertaking is of Man, IT will Fail; 39 but if it is of God, you Will Not be Able to Overthrow them. You might even be found Opposing God! So they took his advice, 40 and when they had called in the apostles, they beat them and charged them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.
41 Then they left the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name. 42 And every day, in the temple and from house to house, they did not cease teaching and preaching that the Christ is Jesus.
38 "So in the present case I tell you, Keep Away from these men and let them alone, for IF this Plan or this undertaking is of Man, IT will Fail; 39 but if it is of God, you Will Not be Able to Overthrow them. You might even be found Opposing God!
I just Believe it all comes from an existing visible Church first for two thousand years.
I apologize, in post #30 Peter did not quote Isaiah 44:8 but rather Isaiah 8:14 which is translated Petra in the Greek in 1 Peter 2:8, thus equating Petra (Greek) and Tsuwr (Hebrew).
I understand this objection, but there are many layers within the dialog of Jesus. Before we consider syntax we must consider context. Jesus and the Apostles had the conversation in Matthew 16 in Caesarea Philippi. Located near the Golan Heights the city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall also known as the rock of the Gods. At the base of this wall was a flooded cave that local superstitions believed was a passage to the under world. It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan (the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. When you factor in the possible play on words the syntax is not so clear.
Now, were this the only passage in the Gospels that addressed the primacy of Peter there might be some room for disagreement, but there are about 50 verses that establish it. Peter, like Abram (Abraham) Jacob (Israel) and Sara (Sarah) was given a new name by God upon the bestowing of their holy office. Collectively these leave no doubt.
From http://reformation500.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/historical-literature-on-the-earliest-papacy/:
Keep in mind, too, that there was not any such thing as a monarchical episcopacy for maybe the first hundred years or more of the church. It evolved over time; many have traced this evolution. It is not in question except by individuals such as these Roman apologists who want to maintain the fantasies of some kind of unbroken succession.
Interestingly, regarding Peter and succession, the Catholic writer Raymond Brown says, The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Pauline type of apostleship, not that of the Twelve. (Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections, Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
The Catholic historian Paul Johnson goes a bit further than Brown, in his 1976 work History of Christianity:
Eusebius presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.
Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop.
In Egypt, Orthodoxy was not established until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus.
Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list; When Eusebiuss chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.
Going back again in time, it is interesting to note the development of certain enhancements to the stories of succession. Of course Irenaeus passes along the whopper suggesting that Peter and Paul founded the church at Rome. He says, Since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches (helpfully provided above by Johnson), we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome (Against Heresies, 3.3.2).
Peter and Paul neither founded nor set up the church at Rome. Paul of course wrote to the Romans in 56 or 58 ad that he had never been there, although the church was existing, thriving, and was attested as early as the Edict of Claudius as early as 49 ad (see Acts 18:2-3), having traveled there from Jerusalem, maybe as early as Acts 2, via the Puteoli-Rome trade routes.
Peter is said to have died in 64 ad, under Nero. There were many legends that Peter arrived at Rome during the reign of Claudius (41-54), and was bishop of Rome for 25 years. But Acts 15 places him in Jerusalem and Pauls letters place him in Corinth and Galatia (not as a leader, but as a missionary) well into the 50s, long after the church had been founded in Rome. Cullman, after a thorough investigation of the historical sources, says that he became the leader of the Jewish Christian mission; that in this capacity, at a time which cannot be more closely determined but probably occurred at the end of his life, he came to Rome and there, after a very short work, died as a martyr under Nero. (Cullman, Peter, pg. 152) Cullman refuses to discuss the notion that Peter lived in Rome for 25 years, noting that it is so obviously fictitious that it did not merit any serious discussion.
It sure would be nice if y'all could understand the actual definition of sola Scriptura and REMEMBER it. The term means:
The Scriptures alone are our final and only infallible source from God for the doctrines of the Christian faith.
It can't get much plainer than that and it stands in direct contradiction to the Roman Catholic doctrine that "Tradition" and the "Magesterium/Pope" are equally authoritative and infallible. The truth is that ONLY the divinely inspired Holy Scriptures are infallible - something EVEN the Catholic Church teaches - and this means simply that only doctrines that can be backed up by Scripture are binding upon a Christian. It doesn't mean that other people: church "fathers", theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. cannot be studied or referenced, only that whatever they say MUST be proven by Holy Scripture. It is the guidebook for our faith.
So, stop already with the "Bible ONLY" strawman. If y'all didn't get it before, hopefully you won't continue to make the same mistake.
You wrote:
"The CCC must have gotten it wrong, then. You might want to inform the Vatican of their error:"
Nope. Nothing in the CCC contradicts what I said. That there are two interlocked meanings to the passage
has never been denied by the Church. Nor is it denied by me. The simple fact is Peter is the Rock, and he stood out as such by his confession of faith. Also - and perhaps you're simply ill-informed rather than dishonest - but you might want to look at CCC 552. It's always amusing when anti-Catholics attack the Church using the Catechism because it always ends up showing how little they know about the Catechism or the Church.
I am glad you are solid in your convictions brother, as am I.
If we want to believe non history made up we can. Just sheer after the fact from many centuries later. First started in the 1500 hundreds from the spirit that brought us a man who took books out of the bible.
Boatbums you are a fairly decent person from your writings. I remember years ago you were not so hung ho on this then we read more of this "trash" . We have to check out original sources like the early church father. I do not see how we can not see that these sites are taking them out of context. All the early church fathers were priests and Bishops as Catholic who believed in the real presence, and the apostolic succession. Just read it for your self.
We have people who tried to put that they did not believe in the real presence on these threads. Like one person had some writing from one of these sources. I go to the original I read it is showing the real presence by the consecration at the end. Consecration is a catholic term for the pray for the bread to be prayed over for the Real Presence. Then I read that the word " figure " is real explaining how the bread and wine become the body and blood but looks the same as bread. Which means the same explanation today in the Catholic Church.
Then the word "figured " is being used from someone who is trying to prove the commmunion is a symbol. Just plain idiocy from these sites.
Just read it for your self. You are well intended but wow. We can not change history.
"And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, PERCEIVED THE GRACE THAT WAS GIVEN UNTO ME, (Paul), they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that WE should go unto the HEATHEN, and THEY unto the CIRCUMCISION."Gal. 2:9.
"Howbeit FOR THIS CAUSE I (Paul) obtained mercy, for THAT IN ME FIRST Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, FOR A PATTERN to them which should HEREAFTER BELIEVE ON HIM to life everlasting." 1 Tim. 1:16.
There is a wealth of information to show who was doing what and why in those Scriptures. And how the Book of Acts transitions.
Every group with some difference of opinion. We can all read the bible but what is the true meaning. So we go to a person or body outside of scripture. But who is the right one.
True history shows otherwise. Christ left people in charge not a book. Because of his great beautiful Divine Mercy we can find Christ and The Holy Spirit in the bible. But first came a Church then the bible with the same church.
"It doesn't mean that other people: church "fathers", theologians, pastors, teachers, etc. cannot be studied or referenced, only that whatever they say MUST be proven by Holy Scripture. It is the guidebook for our faith"
Yes but who ultimately declares what the meaning in a verse really means? We can pick and choose. Then disagree with someone with same philosophy that they are wrong too. Just not what our Lord intended. I beg to differ.
I have read some weird assumptions from some of these threads. They did not get it from the bible only. They had to read from outside then incorporate it into the meaning of the verse. Like Paul started first church and there are strange sequences after the book of acts going to book of revelation. We do not have to confess our sins. Hello!
8 " If we claim to be without sin, we DECEIVE ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us."
Notice everything in that scripture. Just plain dangerous. We have to point out the most dangerous and harmful.
We all have to confess. I never met a Protestant Or Indy church person in my life who who no matter how a confession is made that did not believe in it until these threads. Just astonishing. And I left the Catholic Church then came back. Never. Dangerous to even assume.
"A feast of the Conception of the Most Holy and All Pure Mother of God was celebrated in Syria on 9 December perhaps as early as the 5th century. Note that the title of achrantos (spotless, immaculate, all-pure) refers to the holiness of Mary, not specifically to the holiness of her conception. By the 7th century the feast of her conception was widely celebrated in the East, under the name of the Conception (active) of Saint Anne....
Wiki (links at source)"
There was no such cult of Mary in existence during the first few hundred years following Christ's resurrection. Mary, who is supposedly without a sin nature and perpetually a virgin, a being so great she can hear the millions of Rosary prayers around the world, and can save people through devotion of her immaculate heart, is hardly mentioned in the Bible. In the Old Testament prophecies, she is a virgin who would give birth to "God with us." There is no mention of any Catholic doctrine regarding Mary anywhere in the Bible. For one so important, why is there such extreme silence about her? And how can anyone ever be born without a sin nature, despite the scripture that teaches that even the best Saints are wicked in the sight of God? There is no contemporary historical accounts relating the assumption of Mary or the idea that Mary was perpetually a virgin or without sin. All that we do have originates from fraudulent works attributed to people who did not write them or other sources that read like ridiculous fairy tales, and to which the Catholics justify through "it seems like it should be true, so it is." Tertullian denied the perpetual virginity of Mary, and other Catholic dogmas only came up little by little over the next few hundred years. The only thing perpetual has been the perpetual addition of Mariology to the church, which is so altogether fleshy that it makes a mockery of all Christianity.
"All" that was presented in my post is "garbage"? Really? Did you take note that two of the references came from Catholic historians (Paul Johnson) including one who was a priest? His name was Father Raymond Brown and the document he wrote was given a nihil obstat AND an Imprimatur. So, when he or Johnson speak of the historical evidence that proves Peter and Paul did NOT found the Church of Rome, that Peter did NOT stay there as Pope for 25 years or that the lists of "Apostolic Succession" generated by a few of the Early Church Fathers, i.e., Eusebius and Irenaeus, then they certainly have no "axe to grind" nor should they feel the need to confect their own history since these facts were also known to many others. They have endorsements from the Catholic Church.
This brings up why, when we attempt to discuss things that may or may not have happened thousands of years ago, we find ourselves at loggerheads because we come at it from two different viewpoints. This site http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and.html does a good job of explaining why this can be like pulling teeth:
The same phenomenon occurs when it comes to discussing historical evidence for and against the claims of Rome. A person who believes that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has special divine authority naturally looks at evidence for the claims of Rome in a much different way than a person who does not believe that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. If a person firmly believes that the Roman Magisterium is infallible (i.e. incapable of error) under certain conditions; in short, if that is his basic theological axiom, then by definition he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error. This is the reason that for faithful Roman Catholics, the very possibility of there being evidence contradicting the claims of the Roman Church is non-existent. Any alleged evidence of error offered by Protestants or others must be explainable in some other way.
Those who do not begin with the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism see abundant evidence against the claims of Rome in Scripture, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the documented events of church history. This evidence prevents them from believing that the Roman Catholic Magisterium has divine authority. For those who adopt the basic theological axiom of Roman Catholicism, all of this alleged evidence essentially ceases to exist. From the perspective of the non-Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic is doing something comparable to reading a red-letter Bible with red tinted glasses. If he sets aside the glasses, he can see all the words printed in red. If he puts the glasses on, all the words printed in red disappear from his sight. From the Roman Catholic perspective, it is non-Roman Catholics who are reading the evidence with a distorted lens.
To be fair, Roman Catholics are not alone in dealing with this kind of criticism. All of those who believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture are criticized in a similar way by liberals and skeptics who say they have found abundant evidence of error in Scripture. If a person truly believes that the Scriptures are the inerrant Word of God, he cannot at the same time believe that there is any real evidence of error in the Scriptures. He trusts that there is an explanation for any apparent errors, even if he does not know what that explanation is. In the same way, a Roman Catholic who truly believes in the infallibility of the Magisterium will trust that there is an explanation for any alleged errors presented by non-Roman Catholics.
So, knowing that none of us is completely objective, how do we deal with the claims of Rome? Rome claims special divine authority and infallibility. Rome claims to be the one Church Christ founded on earth. Rome claims that those who are not in communion with the Pope are schismatics. These are very big and very consequential claims. When faced with such claims, one does not simply make a blind leap of faith one way or the other. One needs to know whether the claims are true before making any kind of commitment. Why? Because if an institution is making those kinds of claims and they are false, one would be committing oneself to a lie of monumental proportions. On the other hand, if the claims are true, rejecting them is equally serious.
I submit that the claims of Rome do not stand up to close scrutiny when measured by any standard other than Rome herself. While the claims of Rome have a theoretical plausibility when considered alone, that plausibility evaporates when we evaluate the evidence for and against those claims. At issue, then, is the truth or falsity of the premise regarding the special divine authority of the Roman Catholic Church. If that premise is granted, many of the remaining claims of Rome follow. The problem, however, is that there is abundant evidence from Scripture, tradition, and history that renders the truthfulness of the basic premise entirely implausible. In other words, while Romes arguments using this premise may be logically valid, none of them are sound because the key premise is false.
I sincerely hope you will go to the site and read the entire article. My intent is NOT to sow discord but to speak the truth in love the best way I can. I fully understand that not everyone will accept it, but, perhaps, there are a few who will and will find rest for their souls in the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ which is salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ.
Let me now briefly -- since this is not the topic, -- comment on your objections to the veneration of Mary.
The premise that she is "is hardly mentioned in the Bible" is wrong. Regarding the Old Testament, you forget the mini-gospel of Genesis 3:15 where the prophecy is made that the seed of a woman will crush Satan. Since women have no seed, and no one but Jesus her Son crushed Satan, that woman would be Mary. In the New Testament she is the central character of two Gospel chapters Luke 1-2, she appears with Jesus throughout His ministry, where Jesus gives her keeping the Word as an example to others (Luke 11:27-28) who already venerate her. She is alone with John at the foot of the Cross, where she is told to adopt John and through him, the entire Church as her children (John 19:26-27). That request of dying Christ was of course fulfilled as in Revelation of John (chapter 12) we see her engaged in combat with Satan together with her children "who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Apoc. 12:17). In the Upper Room as the Holy Spirit enters the Catholic Chruch -- she is there also with the Holy Apostles (Acts 1:14, then see Acts 2:1-4). Aside from Jesus Himself and possibly St. Peter our First Pope, she is the most prominent figure of the Gospels. you should try reading the Holy Scripture every now and then, not just repeat Protestant propaganda.
The icons of Mary appear as soon as there are icons.
So on "here was no such cult of Mary in existence during the first few hundred years following Christs resurrection", your statement seems lacking in education as well.
You don't have a concept of sin and sainthood right. Saints are people who overcome their sinful nature and become united to Christ in the course of their lives. When they are saints, they are no longer "wicked"; they overcome sin. Mary is a saint who attained sainthood at conception ("hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women", Archangel Gabriel called her in Luke 1:28).
Finally, please get a clue regarding the operation of the Catholic Church. In the Protestant world, there are teaching of men that are proclaimed out of their own head and then they become what the Protestant pastors teach. So Lutehr invented Bible Alone and Faith Alone, Calvin invented limited atonement and total depravity of man, and bingo, Protestant pastors, like cockroaches, crawl off to repeat their lies. The Church of God does not operate that way. The dogmata of the Church are forever in the deposit of faith given the Apostles by Christ ("the faith once delivered to the saints" Jude 1:3). The dogmata of the Church are proclaimed when, with the passage of time, a controversy arises and a need emerges to clarify the Deposit of Faith. The dogmata do not alter the faith, they sustain it in purity and protect the doctrines of Christ from ravings of heretics.
I invite your brief questions since this might be a lot to digest for you, but I will not respond to another silly screed off-topic.
What I was stating among other things is that Raymond Brown has liberal theology leanings. I do not even understand how he is a priest. These sites that are mentioned are presenting third party sources. The thing we have to do is really read the books that are mentioned on these sites. I have read their source materials and found twisting of words. Especially of the early Church fathers writings.
The early church writings about Peter and Paul does not conclusively state that Paul had last say. All it was stating that churches were founded by both. I read this document outside of this site. The site takes the liberty to take sentences out of context. Then put in whatever to their view it seems without a doubt.
Read the original source material not third party minimal quotes from site.
His writings declare no succession. Gee I wonder why and when they ignore something like this in their writing.
What in the world is this:
Augustine of Hippo:
Letter 53 (A.D. 400) For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!
The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius..
Notice successor of Peter.
In all that Glop of words on that site. Not once did I read this successer of Peter By Augustine!!
How convient!
Its what they do not show that is astonishing!
Please! amazing! Go to original sources.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


text:
Mobile Banking
Make your smartphone a genius with mobile banking. Download the free Member One FCU mobile banking app and access your accounts from anywhere your phone has coverage. No pinching or zooming, just safe and secure financial management.
With the Member One mobile app, you can also:
- Transfer funds between accounts
- Activate and use Purchase Rewards
- Find a branch or ATM location
Mobile Deposit
With the Member One mobile app, you can also deposit checks into your account from your smartphone. It's as easy as "tap, snap, deposit." Simply sign up for mobile check deposit within the Member One app and begin depositing money into your account by taking a picture of your check and submitting it right from the mobile app. For a demonstration on mobile check deposit, view the video here.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Can I make member-to-member transfers on the app?
Not at this time, but you can make external transfers.
- Does the location map include shared branches?
No, but it does show in-network ATMs.
- The app has stopped responding; what should I do?
Remove the app and re-install. If the problem persists, call 800-666-8811.
- Why does it take two business days for mobile deposits to clear?
Two business days are required for processing.
- My transfer isn't working; what could be wrong?
Federal regulations allow only six online transfers from your savings account per month. You have exceeded this amount.
- How do I reset my password?
Go to memberonefcu.com and follow the password reset instructions.
- Why are text message notifications not working?
Text message notifications are not sent in real time. Generally, they are sent at 12:00 p.m. each day.
Download The App
How-To Guide
Follow this simple guide to get the most from our mobile banking service. Want a print? Stop by any branch and pick up a free Mobile Banking User Guide fold-out poster.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Submission Guidelines
We accept submissions under all categories throughout the year.
Your work may be selected for publication on our website (Origins Online)
in Origins Journal.
Origins Journal is published twice a year and the issues are available for download as an ebook on our website or in print via our partner, Politics & Prose Bookstore.
EXPEDITED SUBMISSION: Our review process can take several months. If you would like a response to your submission within two weeks, elect this category. The $10 submission fee covers administrative costs.
*Please note that this applies to all categories except Poetry, Tip Jar Submission, and Feedback on My Submission entries.
TIP JAR SUBMISSION: Under this category, you may submit work in any genre for $5. This is completely optional and your submission will not be treated any differently than if you submit your work under one of the other categories listed below.
If you elect this submission option, please know how much we appreciate your support!
FICTION: Origins publishes high quality fiction characterized by interest in language, development of distinctive settings, and the perturbation of unique characters.
NONFICTION: We look for distinctive topical essays and personal "creative nonfiction" of any kind. Please keep in mind that topical essays should be written for a general audience (We're not interested in academic pieces).
FLASH FICTION: Fiction under 600 words.
POETRY: All verse formats and subjects are considered. Originality and precision of language are important to us. Please submit no more than three poems.
TRANSLATION: We consider translations of poetry and short fiction. Along with the English translation, please also submit a brief biography of the author and as well as the poem/story in its language of origin. If your piece is selected for publication, you will be asked to write a Translator's Note.
FEEDBACK SUBMISSION: If you would like one of our editors to offer a written critique of your submission, please submit your work under this category. In exchange for $25, we will give you our thoughts and suggestions for how you might strengthen the piece. Feedback will consist of no less than 200 words and will be sent to you via email with the name of the editor or editor(s) who provided the feedback. We will not, however, be able to provide line edits or offer feedback beyond our initial response email to you.
If we accept your submission for publication in Origins Online you will receive one printed copy of an issue of your choosing. If we select your work for publication in the journal, you will receive a printed copy of the journal in which your work appears.
Please note that the money raised here will not go to paying individual editors for their time, but will be used to cover administrative costs.
Additional Information
Please note that all submissions are considered for publication in either Origins Journal or Origins Online at the discretion of the editors. This means that your piece may appear in the journal (which may be downloaded and/or purchased as a print-on-demand copy through Politics & Prose) or on our website.
The word limit for all prose submissions is 7,500.
We do not accept multiple submissions.
Multiple submissions will be returned unread.
We only consider previously unpublished work.
We DO accept simultaneous submissions but please notify us as soon as possible if your work is accepted elsewhere.
Origins is an online and print publication interested in showcasing first worldwide serial rights and nonexclusive reprint rights, for the full term of the copyright, for publication of the work in electronic, audio, and print form (which means that the magazine may reprint this work in a future print publication and may archive it online for permanent display, however reconfigured, on this website) and for use, along with the author's name, in publicizing, promoting, and advertising the work itself as well as Origins.
Soon, we hope to offer payment to our contributors. We are working hard to raise the money to be able to do this. If you'd like to support this effort, you may do so by choosing to submit either under the EXPEDITED SUBMISSION, FEEDBACK SUBMISSION or TIP JAR SUBMISSION category. We also accept donations in any amount on our website under the DONATE tab.
Responses may take several months. As with submissions to any literary magazine, familiarity with our journal will give you a sense of the kind of work we like.
If you have any questions or concerns, please email us at


text:
PLUGGED: Stoned vs Drunk vs Sober
The New Movement-ATX
Multiple Dates
Event Details
$7 online/$10 @ door - This thing will sell out so get your tix now!
Are there ID requirements or an age limit to enter the event?
We can't sell alcohol at our venues, so it's BYOB. However, if the event states that we're giving out free booze (which sometimes happens), you'll have to show a 21+ ID to get in the doors.
What is the refund policy?
If you buy an online ticket, you should arrive 30 min before the start of the show to guarantee getting a seat because we also sell tickets at the door and usually have a crowd waiting for no-show seats. If you don't arrive at least 10 min before the show, your seats could be given out to people on our waiting list, and if that happens, you will not be entitled to a refund since we don't offer refunds after the show has started.
The New Movement Downtown
616 Lavaca
Multiple Dates
Add to my calendar
The New Movement-ATX
Website: http://newmovementtheater.com/organizer/the-new-movement/
Phone: 512-595-3816


text:
Are you looking for the best pizza delivery in Abbeville, Louisiana? Welcome to Domino's Pizza in Abbeville, Louisiana, where choice is king and serving you is our number one priority.
At Domino's, pizza delivery and more are what make us the tastiest choice in Abbeville. We go above and beyond to make sure that when you order from us, your pizza will be custom-made and delivered hot to your door. You can choose from tons of toppings, sauces, crusts, and sizes, to make a mouthwatering combination. Or try a hand-made specialty pizza fresh from our ovens like the Ultimate Pepperoni Feast™ and Pacific Veggie Pizza. And our pizza is just one of the ways Domino's is the best in the area. We have a top-notch selection of pasta entrées, sandwiches, desserts, drinks, appetizers, and more! Domino's lets you choose how you build your meal so we can make you exactly what you're craving.
With more than 11,700 stores in over 75 countries all over the globe, we know what it means to be the best. Order from our restaurant in Abbeville, Louisiana for Abbeville pizza delivery and carryout and experience the best choices and most delicious menu. Call, order online, or use our smartphone app to order today!


text:
Yay for me!
Hey guys, I won the #PW1K at the awesome Heather Howland's blog!
Yay, I'm super excited.
Thank you all who voted on me and helped me with this =) Really, it was awesome!
Recapping for those who don't know,
Once upon a time, there was a picture. And writers were invited to write a story of up to 1000 words about the picture. The best four became finalists and put up to anonymous voting. My story was among those finalists for August. And I won!
Here is the picture and the story:
I didn't have time to stop and think about the pebbles scratching under my feet, nor the exhaustion winning over, nor the object secured in my hand.
I couldn't afford wasting time. I had to run. I had to get away.
My mistake was to glance back.
My heart skipped a few precious beats and I tripped over my own legs out of fear.
The terrifying Knights of The Order kept coming, running faster than I ever could. Soon they would catch up with me and it would be my end.
I blinked the panicked tears from my eyes and forced my legs to their limit. No, I couldn't give up that easily. I had come this far, hadn't I?
With the black lake as my companion, I ran through the stony white sand, wishing there was salvation beyond the horizon, beyond the edge of the lake and the mountains behind it.
The horizon came. I froze. A long hill stretched down for tiresome miles, the black water reaching along with it for many miles, beyond my sight.
A raspy sigh escaped my lips and I locked my wobbly knees before I fell onto the ground and into desperation.
There was nowhere to run to and the Knights were getting closer and closer. Nowhere except for a bare wooden pier that lingered long and high over the lake. With no options, I ran to the pier.
At the edge, I skidded to a stop and peeked at the water, many feet below. It was daunting and entrancing at the same time.
The wind picked up and I felt cold brushes scraping against my skin. A shudder took hold of my body. I closed my eyes and let the wind bring new air, fresh air, into my lungs. Hopefully, it would bring clarity into my mind too.
Under my feet, the wood boards shook. I glanced back only to find my pursuers moving into the pier.
My heart jumped to my throat.
What could I do now? Where could I go?
My gaze found the black water beneath me. The breeze came back, from the other side this time, gently pushing me forward. Was it the response I needed? Was it the solution to my escape? Jump and hope I made the long fall?
I squeezed the pendant in my palm until I could feel it thrumming against my skin.
I stepped closer to the edge, closed my eyes and inhaled deeply, filling my lungs with courage.
If I had to do this, if this was the only one to save me and save the pendant, I would do it. I would do it. I would … fear crawled up my arms and I peeked at the dark abysm ahead of me. Gods, would I do it?
The boards shook harder now. I could hear their voices as they got closer, shouts and loud orders to kill me as soon as they put their hands on me. Not too long now.
I slid to the edge until my toes were hanging free of the boards. I curled them and leaned forward. The tight knot on my stomach wouldn't stop me. Nor would my shallow breathing, or my shaking hands.
Perhaps the water god would be merciful and allow me to enter his realm unharmed. Perhaps he would provide me with shelter until I could surface and head home. He would escort me away through a safe path underwater. Or the sky goddess could interfere and blow a powerful gust of wind during my fall, carrying me to the other side of the lake, from where I could run away on my own.
After all, the pendant was sacred to all—even the gods.
Yet, fear clutched my heart and gnawed at my stomach. Gods weren't very fond of helping humans. Hell, they weren't very fond of anything other than just sit back and laugh of our puny lives.
It didn't matter now. This was my only chance. I could pray for the gods' help, but I didn't have time. My only wish was to survive the fall and swim away, with the pendant secured in my hand.
A shudder swept through my back as I spread my arms to the sides and waited for the wind to come back, waited for the wind to push me into the air.
"In the name of the King, surrender!" I heard one of the Knights yelling. He was too close. Too close.
The wind came, bringing relief to my tense muscles, and enough force to push me forward. I helped, titling my body toward the edge. The gust thrust me from the pier just when gloved-fingers rasped my wrists, trying to get hold of me. But now I was free, falling down.
Falling down.
And falling.
Falling …
Was this death? It had been so quick that I was fortunate to not feel any pain, not even for a second?
Coming from above, the Knights' enraged shouts pierced my ears. I was not dead?
My eyes fluttered open and I gasped, my heart hammering against my tight chest. I found myself floating on the air, halfway through the pier and the black lake. More important, before me stood two gigantic figures, their robes flowing, their skin glowing, their eyes wide and knowing.
The water god and the sky goddess.
I swallowed down my fear and surprise. My mind bellowed "You're doomed" and I knew my mind was about right. I was doomed.
Thank you for voting, reading and appreciating it =)
Finalist at August #pw1k
The awesome Heather Howland created an equally awesome monthly contest on her blog.
It's called A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words or #pw1k for short.
Ms. Howland chooses a picture and asks writers to write a short story or an excerpt of a story (up to 1000 words), and send to her through the contest email.
She then reads all entries, chooses the finalists and post them on her blog, opening up for vote. The winner will receive a short critique—and I've heard Ms. Howland is a superb editor.
The picture above is the one used on the August contest.
And I'm a finalist for August.
And I would like to win that critique. #shamelessselfpromotion
Click here to read my story—it's called THE PENDANT. Click here to vote. However, pay attention to the guidelines (they are pasted right above the poll box).
You can read (and vote for) the other three entries on her blog.
WIP update: August 15-19
I've started this week much better!
Monday = 2726 words
Tuesday = 1000 words
Wednesday + Thursday = WriteOnCon + reading (couldn't put it down!) + Real Life
Friday = 5,500 words
Total week = 9226 words
And ended it with a really great number … but I'm embarrassed of Tue, Wed and Thu. Jesus, why didn't I write more? Even if it was to write aaaaaa, bbbbb LOL Kidding =)
Anyway, hope next week is better.
Red Pencil Thursday Volunteer
Hey guys,
Today I'm featured as the volunteer for the Red Pencil Thursday series at Mia Marlowe's blog.
Click here to access the goodness and share your opinion =)
The Speed Limit
As some of you many know, from reading a previous post, I still don't know which route to follow. Trad publishing? Agents? Small presses? Self-publishing? I honestly don't know. Right now, I'm considering all options available to me. Though, I confess the slow processing of the trad publishing pushes me away.
Well, I've got one finished MS and it's sitting on my desk while I try to figure out what to do (in the meantime, I'm writing another MS).
Why I didn't self-published it, you may ask. Because readers of self-published authors want speed, among other things.
On his post titled If I were an unpublished author, would I self-publish?, author Bob Mayer advises writers to wait and only self-publish after having finished 3 manuscripts. Why? To build up readership and then to invest in marketing, so not to waste money.
And that's what I'm doing. While I consider self-publishing or not, I'm writing another book, so, when and if I self-publish, I'll have more than one book to upload. And if I choose another route, still it won't be a bad thing to have more than one MS ready.
Moreover …
Speed is one of aspects that changed the most with the e-revolution. On his blog, author Dean Wesley Smith talks about the importance of speed in today's market.
Traditional published authors tend to have the books of a series released one per year.
Some small presses can push book series to be released every 6 to 9 months, depending …
Readers of self-published authors/books now expect books of a series to be delivered even faster.
For example, Sarra Cannon released the first book in the Peachville High Demons, Beautiful Demons, in October/2010. The second one, Inner Demons, was released in December, 2010. From book 1 to book 2, only two months passed! Then, Cannon released book 3, Bitter Demons, in February/2011 (only 3 months after the second one) and book 4, Shadow Demons, in July/2011. Now, we are anxiously waiting for book 5! But we know it won't take too long for Cannon to release it.
One observation that may influence why self-published authors are able to release books (of the same series) faster than traditional published authors: self-pubbed authors tend to write one series at a time while many traditional pubbed authors have 3 or 4 series up at the same time. (Of course, that's not taking into consideration that the publisher may be interested in releasing one book per year of the same series because of marketing and expectation …) That's the case of Richelle Mead, for example. Mead has 3 series out at the moment (2 actually as VA already ended and Bloodlines will be out only next week, then the Succubus one will end too. But well, since she wrote 3 at the same time for many years, let's consider it's 3). Mead writes a book after the other, each one from a different series.
Would that work in self-publishing?
Yesterday, on a thread at Kindleboards, many folks said they don't like to buy the first on a series until a couple more are released too—why? Two reasons: to make sure the series continues and, if they like it, to read it as a fan, one after the other.
So, is it better to focus on a single series, finished it first, then start writing others?
What do you think?
- Self-published authors should write only one series at a time?
- Self-published authors should aim to release one book every two months? One book every four months? Or every six?
- How long in between self-published books is too long?
WIP update: August 8-12
I'm ashamed of this past week.
Many things happened and I didn't have much time for writing … somethings happen that we can't control … I went house hunting (which takes a lot of time), then I had three gifts to buy, I had to take my daughter to the doctor (routine), etc …
But looking at the numbers below, I cringe in shame. I should have not slept and written some more!
Monday = 1245 words
Tuesday = 2005 words
Wednesday = 2283 words
Thursday = 357 words
Friday = 1172 words
Total (week) = 7062 words
And I started fresh on a new MS. Yeah, I hate to admit it, but I put GH#1 aside and started KF#1 … and I know what happened.
I'm a plotter. A pure plotter. I may not know all the details, but I do an outline of scene by scene or chapter by chapter from beginning to end.
However, I didn't plan ahead for GH #1. I just went out with my idea and my protagonist and wrote what came to my mind. I had a general idea of where I wanted to go, of what I wanted to happen, but then some characters had strong voices and demanded more attention … I had some great scenes I loved, but that slowed the pace of the MS … what I mean is, things were happening too slowly. When I plot ahead, I make sure all scenes have tension and conflict and move the story forward. With GH #1, with no planning, there were scenes without much purpose … they were sweet and all, but, like I said, they were slowing the action. So, I decided to go back and outline the plot for the story.
That's when the idea for the KF#1 came back into my head (I first thought of it about a year ago). This one had a slow beginning too, so I had new ideas to make a better beginning, outlined the whole plot, and started writing. I just wished I had more time to write it this week.
But, oh well, it's a beginning.
Which route to follow?
I thought about naming this post "Traditional vs Self-Publishing", but then I reconsidered seeing I'm going to talk about small presses too, and, to some, that's not exactly going the traditional route since you don't need an agent to submit to a small press.
Also, it took me a long time to write this post since my thoughts about this subject are many (and not necessarily in order) and they bring up more aspects and more subjects to the table.
Well, now on to the original post:
I still have my doubts of which way to follow about the publishing part of my books …
There are so many different ideas and discussions around the web about going trad or indie and, while reading them, I find myself divided.
Sometimes, I wake up and think "okay, I can do this. I'll self-publish."
Then, I stumble across a nice book from a big publisher and think how I would love the prestige of having my name under their wings.
Later, I read articles that feature Maya Banks and Moira Rogers (aka Donna and Bree) and some other authors that are published through small presses, without agents, and like it. They like the handling, the covers, the support, the sales.
Through it all, I think and think and think … and can't decide!
In an ideal world, my ideal world, I would self-publish some works, have a series with a small press, and a series with a big-six. And from there I would decide which route is best for me, for my style, for my speed … or I could keep publishing the three ways forever. But that's only a dream …
- Having an agent that can help me with my career, help me plan ahead, think and see big.
- The prestige.
- Having my books on almost any bookstore out there.
- The price of e-books.
- If I don't like my cover, there isn't much I can do about it.
- If an editor wants to cut a scene I love, there isn't much I can do about it.
- I don't know what is the future of trad pub in these agitated waters. Will the trad publisher survive?
- Control over cover.
- Control over price.
- Higher royalties.
- Marketing. (I know it's necessary to have an author platform today in trad pub too, but, if the publisher is putting money down on you, chances are they are going to invest a little in marketing too. Little = better than nothing).
- Editing. I hired an editor, who first critiqued then line edited then copy edited my MS, but is it enough?
- Writing crap. Deep down I know I don't write crap, but what if my instincts are wrong? The editor said my MS was really good, but that's one person. Alright, my beta readers also liked it, but they are my friends, they will never say my work is crap. How do I know for sure I wont make a full of myself publishing my MS?
- Again, marketing. Really, it scares the hell away from me. I'm not sure how to self-promote my work.
- Can I say marketing once more?
SMALL PRESSES: I actually don't see a lot of talk about working with small presses. I know I would get cover art, editing, formatting, a little marketing (very little in some cases) … something else? Tempting …
Author Dean Wesley Smith suggests going indie for now, and later, when the turmoil swirling around the writing industry calms down (in a few years), try going the traditional route, if one so desires it yet.
In a blog post, write L.M. May suggests going both ways at the same time to optimize outlet and income, which is an awesome strategy, if you can land a deal with a trad publisher (we all know that's not that easy).
Agent Kristin Nelson emphasizes, in her blog, that being successful in indie or trad publishing is like winning the lottery. And I agree with her. We see it everyday, indie authors who do great and others who don't sell a thing. And the same applies to traditional published authors. There is no way of predicting what will happen, which novel will be a next NYT Bestseller.
These three articles have valid points I agree with, which adds to my agony of not being able to decide what to do.
This evening, talking with my DH about publishing, I mentioned I want to write for the sake of writing, not for money. Of course, as an engineer, he shook his head and said, "This is your job, you can't think only about doing what pleases you. Now imagine if everyone thought like that about their jobs. Would anyone get anything done?" I hate to agree with him, but he is right. Yes, I would love to think about writing only what I love and think about my readers, not the money that will come in with every sale. However, my husband is a modern man and he wants his woman to help with the family income (thank God for that, btw, but that discussion is not for this post).
When I decided to try the writing route for real (before I wrote as a hobby), we've talked a lot about it. I quit my day job and began writing. Most important, we came with a deadline. If by the end of 2012, I still don't have a deal or selling reasonably well as an indie (or enough to contribute in the household. Reasonably well may vary from family to family, as for state to state), I'll quit writing full time and find a day job. I cringe every time I think of that. Thanks Heaven that deadline is still far away. Nevertheless, with each day that goes by, the due date gets closer, and I can't let it gnaw my insides, otherwise I won't be able to concentrate and do what I love: to write.
And, with each day that goes by, I'm still not sure about what to do.
How come I have a MS ready, fully critiqued and edited, and still don't know what to do? I doubt it happens often. I guess I'm waiting for Jesus Christ to come knock on my door and tell me he got my dream deal for me! LOL
And you, what do you think I should do?
WIP update: August 1-5
The numbers for this week:
Monday: 1086
Tuesday: 1593
Wednesday: 2520
Thursday: 3200
Friday: 1609
Total week: 10,008 words
Total WIP (G.H. #1): 41,323 words
On Wednesday morning, I got the copyedits of the E.L. #1. I fought the urge to go over it all at once, since it would keep me from writing for 1 or 2 days.
Thursday and Friday I worked on the copyedits and the synopsis of the E.L. #1.
Though I reached my goal of 10k words this week, I'm not satisfied. I could have done better if I had glued my butt to my chair and forced myself to focus.
The worse part is, with 41,323 words and more than halfway done, I'm thinking about changing one small detail around chapter 5 and that would mean a lot of reworking and rearranging and rewriting … though, I guess that, to emit the feel I want, I have to do this. Damn, I hate it when this happens!
And, the song I heard the most this week was:
You gotta agree with me these three are very, very sexy, right?


text:
When the administration acknowledged it wanted a 56 mpg corporate average fuel economy standard for 2025 recently, some headline writers duly trotted out stories about industry opposition. But the actual reaction of Ford (NYSE:F), GM and Chrysler was pretty muted.
Sure, dealers complained, but dealers always complain. Mostly what was heard from Detroit this week was crickets.
Why? Consider that Ford plans to triple its supply of hybrid and electric vehicles in the next two years. Consider that GM is ramping up production of its all-electric Chevy Volt. Consider that used cars with good gas mileage have actually gone up in value 30% this year – that's practically unheard of.
Simply put, the government is only pointing the car companies toward opportunity. It's all part of an effort to create a renewable stimulus. Consider what happens when people save or produce the equivalent of one gallon of gas:
Consumers and business both spend capital to produce the saving.
New energy is created, or energy is saved, which pays back the investment.
Downward pressure is placed on oil prices.
The higher the current price of gas and oil, the greater the stimulus. Given that the U.S. consumes 25% of the world's oil with 4% of its population, we have more room to save more than other economies; hence, more room to grow.
The aim is to break the market psychology of the oil complex. Right now producers assume that the value of proven reserves will continue to climb, that pumping oil even at current prices is a sacrifice of future profits. Once they believe prices are headed down permanently, prosperity will arrive.
The real "peak oil" refers not to production but to price. Getting past that "peak oil" requires massive investment in higher-mileage cars, in renewable energy, and in technologies for reducing energy demand generally.
But the economic value of that stimulus is clear. If someone with a 20 mpg car trades it in for a 40 mpg car, they cut their gas costs in half, and those savings can help pay for the car. Seizing that opportunity is how GM will pay for the bailout, and how Ford will continue to grow. Which means investing in the auto industry now makes sense, for the first time in decades.
Disclosure: I am long F.
Additional disclosure: I bought 400 shares of Ford for my IRA in 2009, at $4/share.


text:
Generic Tinidazole
vaginosis, against infections protozoan and is Tinidazole bacterial used amebiasis to trichomoniasis, giardiasis, treat .
Per Pills
Description product.Common use
Treat by to certain caused protozoa antiprotozoal antibiotic is one-celled infections vagina Tinidazole animals) used which an or (tiny, and. Kills certain to sensitive used tinidazole and and sexually parasites transmitted treat infections also bacteria.
And direction Dosage .
Take it with orally food/milk . Same for the each it take day result at best time.
Children older: age 3 recommended dose years or The for.
Amebiasis, 3 g/day) (up mg/kg/day for to2 days - intestinal: 50 for.
(up to2 mg/kg/day days liver g/day) 3-5 - abscess: 50 Amebiasis, for for.
Dose single Giardiasis: 50 2 mg/kg (up to for a g/day) as -.
Dose for The recommended adults: .
For g/day 3 for intestinal: - Amebiasis, days 2.
abscess: g/day for liver 3-5 for days Amebiasis, 2 -.
G/day 2 or for days for - days Bacterial 1 2 g/day vaginosis: for 5.
2 as for single a - Giardiasis: g dose.
Get to at partner same your remember with benefits the that the same dose want sexual should treated more if time you be. As 2 Oral: dose single g - for Trichomoniasis: a.
To before necessary your using consult with it's very doctor. Just review presented for Note: instruction this here. It best help you results get to.
While taking it not drink alcohol taking 3 stop or Do you for after days Tinidazole. It if with seizure and medical in your hepatic impairment history cautions include disorders, use renal. In females), organs trichomoniasis you this time your are at you sexual or taking sex she if partner being are if symptoms of even has and your for treat treated, no (an the infection he to the males medicine same. Pregnant becoming without not lactating should pregnancy, Trinidazole advice or doctor's used during be also. Can headaches, combination in cramps, flushing and vomiting, stomach with tinidazole alcohol cause nausea,. Advice use Tinidazole do doctor's before breast-feeding without not.
Contraindications .
Breast-feeding trimester and it is of for first contraidicated also mothers pregnancy. Nitroimidazole medication not are derivatives hypersensitive (including tinidazole, component to Tinidazole to is people any who or metronidazole), this allowed of.
Side Possible effect .
Side the also possible most include: effects. They ofan types include may allergic reaction all.
seizures; .
Symptoms; aches, chills, fever, flu body.
Or pain, numbness, burning, feeling; tingly.
Rash throat, and and a severe peeling, headache red with sore fever, skin blistering,.
Less include: serious.
Infection white yeast discharge); vaginal (itching,.
An metallic in taste unpleasant mouth; your.
Loss of indigestion; vomiting, appetite, nausea,.
cramps; diarrhea, stomach constipation,.
Urine; dark-colored .
dizziness; headache,.
joint or muscle pain;.
Your the of in tongue; change dry thirst, mouth, color.
Lips; sores or white or patches or inside mouth your on your.
Itching or skin minor rash .
You soon as Tinidazole stop If of doctor your them experience as one using possible and tell. That also your unusual side consult about any doctor effect with seems.
Drug interaction .
As antibiotics ciprofloxacin, nevirapine, HIV or ketoconazole; itraconazole, efavirenz; carbamazepine, john's as wort; or azithromycin, medication such phenytoin delavirdine, phenobarbital seizure or erythromycin, medication, or clarithromycin, such including:. Cimetidine; rifampin; following fluorouracil; drugs: lithium; amiodarone; St dexamethasone; the Tinidazole tacrolimus; cholestyramine; cyclosporine interact or griseofulvin; with. Does mean of also them note always two medications one interaction that stop you not that must between taking. So affects consult drugs, it managed your as be it effect doctor managed the should of about or are being interactions usual how the with.
dose Missed.
It remember you you your soon time, forgot as do take please as in dose If to. Late if almost time take dose is too for or not but it do your next. Increase do not your recommended doses. Time your next the regularly usually dose day same take in.
Overdose .
If immediately experience call doctor unusual your you so any symptoms. Overdose not a Tinidazole of are known Symptoms.
Storage .
Temperature Store (68-77 room 20-25 F) at C between.
Disclaimer .
Special are indirect result of or on as for any not use the damage any other a indirect, we consequences and self-treatment this information direct, for site of of also responsible. Could mistakes reliability of this disclaim we it and information contain. Of for health a with any particular care should be or instructions agreed in charge specific case adviser doctor patient your the. The self-treatment used self-diagnosis and for cannot be at site information. Drug or about directions, We information integrations, precautions general cover medications not all which provide possible only does.


text:
Would you like to save as your currency permanently or for this visit only?
With a stay at Wuhan Renhe Inn in Wuhan (Wuchang), you'll be convenient to Wuhan University and Huazhong Normal University. This hotel is within close proximity of Wuhan University of Technology and Hubei Provincial Museum. Free self parking is available onsite.