Stephen Russell wrote: > On Nov 20, 2007 6:43 PM, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Stephen Russell wrote: >>> On Nov 20, 2007 5:12 PM, Ricardo Aráoz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> And yet, it is only opinion and not Catholic doctrine. Isn't it? >>> I think it is. >>> >> Why? He was no Pope, but a martyr, his opinion would not be binding. > > Paul's writings were late 40s and early 50s. Peter the first > Pope/Papa was installed in 60 or 61? Paul was killed in 61? Peter > was killed in 64? > > When it comes to doctrine, that wasn't put together till 300 to 500. > >>> <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm> >>> >>> This is a good read on the various interpretations between Catholic >>> and Protestant views on or about Paul's writings. >>> >>> Now religion is all an opinion so what does it matter? >>> >> To a Catholic there is a difference between opinion and what the Pope >> says when talking about doctrine. Anyway, we should ask Pete who'll >> probably know better due to his Jesuit upbringing. > > I agree. Are you saying that any Pope in the past 100+years has > restated Paul's messages in papal writings or transcripts? >
No, what I was saying (before this digression) was that Paul was not talking about doctrine. So even if he was a Pope his words could be questioned (even by a Catholic) just like the words of any other human being. It was an answer to the fanaticism I sensed in someone's post about this letter from Paul. _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
