Recently Mr. Hayes has presented a short series on "Popessa Priscilla" claiming Pricilla and Aquila, since they were in Rome prior to Sts. Peter and Paul - that they were the first bishops there - or even the first pope(s). I hope he wasn't being serious, but in his articles he give no indication of not being so in the allegations.
Who were Aquila and Priscilla? They have been thought by some to be part of the 70 apostles "sent out" and while they were in Rome for a time, they left when Claudius kicked out all the Jews (and the Romans saw the early Christians as a sect of Judaism). Some claim that they were converted by St. Paul when he visited them during their exile to Corinth. Later, after Claudius' death, they returned - but again only for a short time, for then they were sent to Asia - where they both died as martyrs (some sources state they may have returned to Rome again and were martyred there about the same time as Sts. Peter and Paul). The precise timing of their conversion is not known, but the fact that they served the early Christian Church as a couple is not disputed, it is that fact which is typically most centered upon - their devotion to Christ, as a couple, to be an example to Christian couples everywhere. There is no mention of them being "bishops" in the early Church.
I also find it somewhat amusing to see folks like Mr. Hays talking about apostolic succession, which Catholics (and Orthodox) clearly have - and Mr. Hays cannot possibly have without reliance upon Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) for valid connection back to the Apostles and Christ Himself.
Several sources to consider:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/saint.php?n=531
http://pontosworld.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1010&Itemid=98
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priscilla_and_Aquila
http://carolyncholland.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/aquila-and-priscilla-a-script-on-their-marriage/
http://www.lifeandland.org/2010/09/aquila-and-priscilla-a-godly-marriage-for-ministry/
Qui Locutus - Formerly The CathApol Blog - a Catholic Apologetics Blog Defending the Faith and keeping Catholics Catholic! Scott Windsor, MEd. - aka: CathApol
10 comments:
Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Feast of the Assumption
The Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - another example of "not-so-ordinary" days! These are COUNTING days - and...
-
Is Sola Scriptura Self Refuting? So goes the title of an article by Steve Hays on Triablogue. The real problem with defining sola scrip... -
In a recent post from Alan/Rhology on Beggars All , he said: >> sw: So you're confirming (again) that your local >> churc...
-
This is a continuing discussion from http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2010/01/pope-working-toward-unity-with-eo.html >> sw: "Um, t...
Scot, even when Hayes is serious, he's funny!
ReplyDeleteI still haven't figured out if he was trying to be serious or funny though.
ReplyDeletejuscot, I'd have to see the direct quote. I've scanned that topic on Triablogue, but I'm not seeing a direct reference (so far) to what you accuse Steve of supporting. He DOES support that masturbation is not a sin, in which he is "dead" wrong, but could you be precise with the quote?
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Scott<<<
Scot, go to Dave Armstrong's blog. Then go to 2/18/2010 in the archive for the article on Steve Hays defending masturbation, among other things. It disgusting!
ReplyDeleteSeems like Protestantism has become fond of 'Apostolic Succession" in the last 5 years or so.
ReplyDeleteOK, found it juscot. Here's the quote I believe you're referring to (which Dave also refers to)...
ReplyDeletei) Since we are responsible for the revealed will of God, and he has not disclosed his will on this particular subject, I don’t think that Christians should go around guilt-ridden if they engage in this practice.
ii) On the face of it, this seems like a natural sexual safety value for single men—especially younger men in their sexual prime.
iii) Like learning how to walk or perform other athletic activities, this form of sexual experience and physical experimentation may train an unmarried young man in attaining some degree of mental and muscular control so that he is not a total novice on his wedding night.
iv) But, by the same token, it is generally illicit for married men—except for periods of prolonged physical separation. Likewise, it should not become a permanent alternative to marriage, unless marriage is not an option.
v) As with any appetite, it runs the risk of becoming addictive or sinful if wrongly directed.
So I can’t say absolutely if it is right or wrong, but I tend to deem it permissible under some circumstances.
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/07/too-hot-to-handle-2.html
More in a bit...
Scott<<<
kkollwitz, I was having the exact same thought, well, without the timeframe attached! Ironic that while they DENY apostolic succession of the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church(es), they, as in this case, seem rather proud of an alternative apostolic succession. More later on this, Mr. Hayes has responded, sort of, stating he was being satirical, but at the same time serious.
ReplyDeleteAMDG,
Scott<<<
By the way Scot, did you see what he said about nuns? The man isn't jst a loon, he'a a blasphemer of holy persons and things!
ReplyDeletejuscot,
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw the comments about nuns, which technically isn't "blasphemy." Also, while you're free to your opinion, I try to refrain from namecalling. While he's off-base on several things, this thread is about the "Popessa Piscilla" nonsense. I'm not hesitant to call someone's arguments silly, but calling them personally a "loon" is a bit over the top for me.
In JMJ,
Scott<<<
I suppose in a broader view of blasphemy, you could assert he blasphemed:
ReplyDelete1. impious utterance or action concerning god or sacred things.
2. Judaism .
a. an act of cursing or reviling God.
b. pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (YHVH) in the original, now forbidden manner instead of using a substitute pronunciation such as Adonai.
3. Theology . the crime of assuming to oneself the rights or qualities of God.
4. irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.: He uttered blasphemies against life itself.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blasphemy
My view of blasphemy has always been the more specific, toward God alone, however your use is acceptable too.
Let me be clear, I do agree his behavior toward others, especially Catholics and religious people, is despicable.
It also seems they realize Steve has been caught in an embarrassing situation so Triablogue has a flood of posts to "bury" his foolishness about "Popessa Priscilla." The post is still there, but you have to hunt for it now.