Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: Matthew on July 22, 2007, 10:49:43 PM
-
-
Michael P. Foley is an Assistant Professor of Patristics at Baylor University. He is the author of Why Do Catholics Eat Fish on Friday? The Catholic Origin to Just About Everything (NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).
You know, I think I actually have the above mentioned book. It has some pretty interesting facts about the Catholic origin of things we find so common now. That only goes to show you how Christ has been a great influence on our society. We run the risk now though of losing such an influence by destructive nature of society today.
So the word "chutzpah" can be used in a positive sense then?
-
...It is generally not the function of a religion to create new forms of competition, yet the ʝʊdɛօ-Christian proclamation of the sanctity of human life led to far-reaching changes in the way that Westerners played games...
FYI...There is no such thing as "ʝʊdɛօ-Christian" anything.
This fantasy posits the idea that Juda-ism is the religion of the OT Israelites. It is not. Juda-ism is the man-made perversion that came into existence in the early ages of the Church, as a direct result of the failure of many Jews to accept the Messias. Juda-ism has the тαℓмυd, etc., as the central, authoritative texts. God's actual revelation through the OT means nothing to them, or they would see that Christ is the Messias.
Wittingly or no, Foley is acting as an agent of ʝʊdɛօ-Churchianity.
-
Yes, "ʝʊdɛօ-Christian" is one of the biggest oxymorons there is.
"Hot-cold" would make more sense.
You don't get any more different than those who follow Jesus Christ as their prime Model, and who worship Him as God -- and those who rejected Him, crucifying Him and considering Him a blasphemous criminal. Furthermore, these latter (Jews) lead a VERY worldly life -- they live for material things and "this life" in general, while Catholics despise material possessions in favor of eternal glory.
Jew -- Christian: It doesn't get any more different!
Matthew
-
There is no doubt that Jesus Christ is the model man, par excellence. However, to posit that manhood started/originated with Catholicism indirectly asserts that St. Joseph, pre-Nativity, and all the Patriarchs, were not quite manly, at least not in a perfect manner. Yes, the Saints of the New Law often surpass those of the Old, but it is wrong to leave the impression that the Saints of the Old Law were not up to par in some way.
-
There is no doubt that Jesus Christ is the model man, par excellence. However, to posit that manhood started/originated with Catholicism indirectly asserts that St. Joseph, pre-Nativity, and all the Patriarchs, were not quite manly, at least not in a perfect manner. Yes, the Saints of the New Law often surpass those of the Old, but it is wrong to leave the impression that the Saints of the Old Law were not up to par in some way.
Well, Catholicism is nothing other than the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The same religion is there really but it is now the New Testament.
-
The least in the Kingdom is greater than St John the Baptist himself.
The saints of the New Testament have the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. The saints under the Old Testament had only vague prophetic glimpses of the Son. They were not given the Spirit. They knew only shadows and types. They may have been up to par. But what a pitifully low par. They had many wives and concubines and no one raised an eyebrow. They allowed pretty girls to be brought into their beds when they were old and gat no heat. Imagine his disciples pulling a stunt like that on St Paul in the Mamertine prison.
Was King David less of a man than St Paul? Less of a gentleman? It would seem inane to see the brave warrior king as lacking in manliness and gentlemanliness. But lacking-grossly- he certainly was. He was less of a Christian. Much less. He was less of a SOMETHING that mattered above all to Christ than John the Baptist and any Christian in a state of grace. Even a Christian who, not having been called upon to bear arms, would hide behind a fig tree if a giant taunted the armies of his country and would only knock out his own eye if he tried to use a slingshot.
-
Well, Catholicism is nothing other than the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The same religion is there really but it is now the New Testament.
Thank you, K.p. I understand the point you bring up, but I was trying to make a slightly different point. I may have failed to come across clearly.
-
Well, Catholicism is nothing other than the fulfillment of the Old Testament. The same religion is there really but it is now the New Testament.
Thank you, K.p. I understand the point you bring up, but I was trying to make a slightly different point. I may have failed to come across clearly.
Well, gladius, it seems manliness as we know it has a Catholic origin at least, not that there was no manliness in Old Testament, but I supposed it was "baptized" though and transformed into something even greater. Would this be correct to say?
-
-
Thank you, JS! :farmer: