Socrates Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:20 PM']Les, The NAB footnotes are notoriously heterodox on many issues. I've heard that a while ago that then Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of removing some of the NAB's Imprimaturs. On the other hand, the Catechism is refered to by the Church as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith. [right][snapback]651089[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Dude, Welcome to LittleLes' World of Make-believe. Les consistently dismisses and trashes the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bible, while holding up the NAB notes and the opinions of heterodox dissenters such as Brown, Curran, Rahnner, etc. as the ultimate and infallable authority of Catholic Truth.
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:20 PM']Les, The NAB footnotes are notoriously heterodox on many issues. I've heard that a while ago that then Cardinal Ratzinger was in favor of removing some of the NAB's Imprimaturs. On the other hand, the Catechism is refered to by the Church as a "sure norm" for teaching the faith. [right][snapback]651089[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Really? What else have you "heard"? Evidence please! And who referred to the Catechism as the"sure norm? Again ,evidence please. Interesting teachings hat have appeared in catechism over time might make an interesting thread!
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:28 PM']Dude, Welcome to LittleLes' World of Make-believe. Les consistently dismisses and trashes the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bible, while holding up the NAB notes and the opinions of heterodox dissenters such as Brown, Curran, Rahnner, etc. as the ultimate and infallable authority of Catholic Truth. [right][snapback]651096[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: You forgot to mention that I document with appropriate evidence when necessary.
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 20 2005, 12:28 PM']Dude, Welcome to LittleLes' World of Make-believe. Les consistently dismisses and trashes the teachings of the Magisterium and the Bible, while holding up the NAB notes and the opinions of heterodox dissenters such as Brown, Curran, Rahnner, etc. as the ultimate and infallable authority of Catholic Truth. [right][snapback]651096[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Shouldn't the issue be whether or not Brown, Curren, and Rahner are correct or not in what they say? Not whether on not you like to hear what they say.
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:33 PM']And who referred to the Catechism as the"sure norm? Again ,evidence please. [right][snapback]651101[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [u]APOSTOLIC LETTER[/u] [i]LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE[/i]: [quote]With today's promulgation of the Latin typical edition, therefore, the task of composing the Catechism, begun in 1986, is brought to a close and the desire of the aforementioned Extraordinary Synod of Bishops is happily fulfilled. The Church now has at her disposal this new, authoritative exposition of the one and perennial apostolic faith, and it will serve as a "[b]valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion[/b]" and as a "[b]sure norm for teaching the faith[/b]," as well as a "[b]sure and authentic reference text[/b]" for preparing local catechisms (cf. Apostolic Constitution Fidei Depositum, no. 4).[/quote] [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:33 PM']RESPONSE: Really? What else have you "heard"? Evidence please! [right][snapback]651101[/snapback][/right] [/quote] [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp[/url] [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 01:33 PM']Interesting teachings hat have appeared in catechism over time might make an interesting thread! [right][snapback]651101[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You realize that the Catechism was promulgated in 1997, correct? The English revisions were revisions of the translation to make it more faithful to the original, not a change in content. I don't know what has "appeared" over time.
LittleLes Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 20 2005, 02:29 PM'][u]APOSTOLIC LETTER[/u] [i]LAETAMUR MAGNOPERE[/i]: [url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9905fea3.asp[/url] You realize that the Catechism was promulgated in 1997, correct? The English revisions were revisions of the translation to make it more faithful to the original, not a change in content. I don't know what has "appeared" over time. [right][snapback]651263[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Thank you for calling to my attention this Apostolic Constitution, a noninfallible letter of Pope John Paul II, claiming that the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a sure norm for teaching the faith." "659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." If the Pope is correct, then Luke's gospel is wrong as to Jesus ascending on Easter Sunday. Actually, I thought White Knight had raised a valid point. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus remained on earth for forty days after his Resurrection interacting with his followers and yet nothing of what he said or did was recorded in Acts? I guess the pope thought so!
White Knight Posted July 20, 2005 Author Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 04:20 PM']RESPONSE: Thank you for calling to my attention this Apostolic Constitution, a noninfallible letter of Pope John Paul II, claiming that the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a sure norm for teaching the faith." "659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." If the Pope is correct, then Luke's gospel is wrong as to Jesus ascending on Easter Sunday. Actually, I thought White Knight had raised a valid point. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus remained on earth for forty days after his Resurrection interacting with his followers and yet nothing of what he said or did was recorded in Acts? I guess the pope thought so! [right][snapback]651484[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Since the Gospel of John only has 21 chapters in its the only one of the four Gospels that doesn't mention the Ascension. it picks that up in the first chapter of the Book of Acts. it makes since to me.
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:57 PM']Since the Gospel of John only has 21 chapters in its the only one of the four Gospels that doesn't mention the Ascension. it picks that up in the first chapter of the Book of Acts. it makes since to me. [right][snapback]651655[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: I'm afraid I can't follow you reasoning here. Maybe, like the nativity narratives along with the report of a virgin birth which John omits, he didn't believe the Ascension actually occurred. Or perhaps wasn't really important.
White Knight Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 I dont see why you dont agree with this. Everyone of the Gospels reports the ascension happened except for John, But the Book of Acts picks up where John Left off. from the Ascension, to theDay of Penecost.
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 21 2005, 11:58 AM']I dont see why you dont agree with this. Everyone of the Gospels reports the ascension happened except for John, But the Book of Acts picks up where John Left off. from the Ascension, to theDay of Penecost. [right][snapback]652640[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: It's not a question of agreeing or not, I don't understand your argument. What is it that you are asserting?
White Knight Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 I'm saying why is it basically you look at the other Gospel accounts, including John's but why do you exclude John's for being Truth? Why dont you think the book of Acts picked up where John Left Off?
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='White Knight' date='Jul 21 2005, 12:59 PM']I'm saying why is it basically you look at the other Gospel accounts, including John's but why do you exclude John's for being Truth? Why dont you think the book of Acts picked up where John Left Off? [right][snapback]652730[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Because Acts of the Apostles was written before the Gospel of John. Hence, how could Acts pick up where John left off? John hadn't written yet. :shades:
DeeDee Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I asked a couple of priests about the "Double Ascension" and was told that indeed Jesus ascended to the Father the same day he was resurrected, but not immediately. Remember he told Mary Magdalen not to touch him because he had not ascended to the Father? In a footnote in Matthew it said that Jesus ascended the same day as the Resurrection, and then ascended again 40 days later ending his corporal life on earth. This footnote appeared in the New American Bible. My question is: If there were two ascensions why doesn't anybody ever talk about it????? It is never mentioned in homilies at Easter, never mentioned in Catholic Schools. What gives?
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='DeeDee' date='Jul 21 2005, 01:36 PM']I asked a couple of priests about the "Double Ascension" and was told that indeed Jesus ascended to the Father the same day he was resurrected, but not immediately. Remember he told Mary Magdalen not to touch him because he had not ascended to the Father? In a footnote in Matthew it said that Jesus ascended the same day as the Resurrection, and then ascended again 40 days later ending his corporal life on earth. This footnote appeared in the New American Bible. My question is: If there were two ascensions why doesn't anybody ever talk about it????? It is never mentioned in homilies at Easter, never mentioned in Catholic Schools. What gives? [right][snapback]652787[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Both Luke and Acts are speaking about the final corporal Ascension. See Luke24:51 "As he blessed them he parted from them and was taken up to heaven." And if you read chapter 24 in its entirety, this was the same day as the Resurrection. No second Ascension for Luke.
Laudate_Dominum Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 I thought I posted on this thread lastnight.. huh.. weird.
Apotheoun Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 Threads in which LittleLes posts all end up looking alike.
White Knight Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 21 2005, 01:25 PM']RESPONSE: Because Acts of the Apostles was written before the Gospel of John. Hence, how could Acts pick up where John left off? John hadn't written yet. :shades: [right][snapback]652764[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Whats your source?
EcceNovaFacioOmni Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 20 2005, 05:20 PM']RESPONSE: Thank you for calling to my attention this Apostolic Constitution, a noninfallible letter of Pope John Paul II, claiming that the (new) Catechism of the Catholic Church is "a sure norm for teaching the faith." "659 "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God." Christ's body was glorifed at the moment of His Resurrection, as proven by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and premanently enjoys." But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familarly with His disciples and teaches them the about the kingdom, His glory remains under apparition veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity." If the Pope is correct, then Luke's gospel is wrong as to Jesus ascending on Easter Sunday. Actually, I thought White Knight had raised a valid point. Is it reasonable to assume that Jesus remained on earth for forty days after his Resurrection interacting with his followers and yet nothing of what he said or did was recorded in Acts? I guess the pope thought so! [right][snapback]651484[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You [i]obviously[/i] didn't read CCC 659.
White Knight Posted July 21, 2005 Author Posted July 21, 2005 Well think about it, you have so many people who were willing to Die because of Jesus at the time. Whos to say they didn't See Him in His Glorified Body?
LittleLes Posted July 21, 2005 Posted July 21, 2005 [quote name='thedude' date='Jul 21 2005, 04:03 PM']You [i]obviously[/i] didn't read CCC 659. [right][snapback]653076[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Oh, But I did. To explain away two differing Ascesnion accounts which conflict as to time and place, we create two Ascensions. What could be simpler! But then there would have had to be a Decension too. (And just why would a body have to ascend to be glorified?) Luke says Jesus "parted" from the Apostles on Easter Sunday. I guess he didn't know that Jesus would return and then ascend again since his gospel ends with the "first" Ascension. :thinking: Of course, the more reasonable explanation is that we're dealing with differing legends here and different writers.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now