Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
Actually, as someone pointed out on another thread, according to Acts 15 it was James who ran the Jerusalem Council, not Peter. Peter was there and played a supporting role (Acts 15:7) but it was James who rendered the verdict (Acts 15:13). Now if Peter was the leader of the Church, sitting in judgment, one has to wonder why James would be the one to make the final decision? The only conclusion one can come to based upon scripture is that James led the early church.
Written Tradition bump.
Protestants love their Catholic brethren and seek to turn them to the true light.
I think the Catholics also love their brethren and seek to turn them to the true light.
Right?
Best in a Christian on Christian "event" is to avoid these Ying/Yang things where everything is divided into yes/no, up/down, right/wrong, hate/love dichotomies. That belongs to a different religion.
This is an anti-protestant thread.
Thanks for the ping and the link!
This verse is indeed primary and IMHO and in my belief, the first and most important act any person can take is to turn to Jesus Christ and believe on His Name. That would be the first step. There would be many, many more steps, not least the many steps requiring we eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, whereby He dwells in us and we in Him. And He told us to do this: "Do this in anamnesis of Me." It is in the consecration of mere bread and wine to BE His Body and Blood that the hierarchy (that is, literally, the priesthood) of the Church arose and continued. That would also make clergy secondary to primal belief, but would not invalidate that clergy. Far to the contrary, it would charter the clergy to be a vital ministerial and Apostolic organ of the Body Catholic.
Just being able to trace one's ordinal line to the Reformers therefore does not suffice. These men are well-qualified proclaimers of the Gospel (and that is by no means a trivial or disreputable occupation and vocation). They are not priests, nor can they consecrate. Therefore their flocks do not eat of His flesh nor drink of His blood. It is a very sad thing, but the most they have is a spiritualized version of His grace. He does not dwell in them in all His fullness as He does in Catholic/Orthodox/Anglican communicants.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
thanks for the gentle correction, none the less in his stay he perverted it. Would that be safe to say?
Catholics do not pray to saints. They do ask saints to intercede with God on behalf of their prayers.
Who among us has not had a dear one pass into death, and then thereafter occasionally whisper to them to help us, and to ask God to help us, since we presume they are now with God? This does not constitute "praying to" my dead father, but of presuming that I can communicate with him in spirit until we are reunited.
Good. Then you should understand the distinction of "eidolon" and why the translation "graven image" is misleading to modern English speakers.
You are rather obtuse. God surely did not use some semi literate southerner to give us the Bible. He worked throught the Curch He Created to give us the Bible. What, did the Bible arrive in the mail one day with a return address of Heaven? You "biblical" Christians are funny. I love how you beleive that God wants you to constantly misinterpret and use His Word out of context. A little levity is a good thing! But I guess that's one of the only benefits of being having a protestant heresy.
Catholics do not bow down to statues. They bow down to the cross (do you?) and before the altar in the church, and they kneel when praying to God. Sometimes in prayers they ask good people (saints and others) who have departed the earth and who are now with God, to intercede on their behalf with God. In the end, direct or indirect communication with God is the object of all prayer.
Would this make keeping the Sabbath on Sunday wrong or sinful?
Perhaps you might find this at least interesting: I noted at that website that there is a teaching service (after which the children were dismissed) and then blessing of bread and wine followed by eating and drinking the blessed elements, prayers and dismissal. That is not a formal Communion, but it is apparently derived from the same source. What scholars have concluded is that the Last Supper was a 'chaburah' meal, that is, an informal meal among friends (chaber). At such meals anything larger than an olive was blessed by the president before being eaten. After the meal was concluded, a particular glass of wine was also blessed and everyone present drank from it.
What Our Lord did in addition was to connect the blessings of bread and wine to Himself ("Do this in anamnesis of Me"). What Buggman's congregation are doing is exactly what was done at the Last Supper without the connection to our Lord's Person as the salvational element. So far as I can see, for this congregation Jesus is King Messiah, which only equates Him with David as God's Anointed. This does come across as rather Arian.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
Note: at Constantine's time, the doctrine of forgiveness was that it was not possible to forgive mortal sin after Baptism (this held even longer in North Africa), but was gradually being subsumed by the Church doctrine of having the authority to bind and loose, which meant that there could be formal absolution of sin by authorized Church clergy. As it was in dispute, Constantine took the safe road. This is not to justify him, he did many awful things. What he did not do was blaspheme the Holy Ghost, which remains the only unforgiveable sin to this day (the reason being if you do not believe that the Holy Ghost inheres in Holy Mother Church, then you can't believe that you were absolved, so you can't be absolved). So, when he was baptized, all his sins were indeed washed away and he died in a state of grace.
It was not the bit hypocrisy that I infer your post suggests.
In Christ,
Deacon Paul+
Point well taken. I responded with that because Sandy had offered previously what he called a "snippet". He evidently had not read my first authoritative link. I was attempting to be facetious. You are both correct.
I read this last night....but I'm still laughing!
>>why does the church limit God in this regard ?
The Church isn't limiting God, God is limiting His Church. Clearly anyone can see the wisdom of this... where are we now... 20,000 protestant denominations? Each denomination takes their particular slant on Biblical interpretation and has their own hierarchy of authority (however stunted). We may all preach Christ crucified for our sins but we are irreconcilable on the minutiae. If the Christian Church weren't harried from without, we would surely be in major turmoil from within. No denomination surrenders the interpretation of their scism!
On the contrary, you have the Catholic Church. Although peopled by flawed men who are in need of correction from time to time (Paul even corrected Peter on his attitude toward the gentiles), it has never needed correction on a matter of doctrine, dogma or the Deposit of the Faith. Indeed, the Church still believes as Christ taught it and has never waivered. There is no conflict between Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. There is only misunderstanding by those taught to distrust anything associated with the RCC.
This article was written by a former protestant who came to the faith through prayer and research. There are many more scholars of protestant theology and ministers who have done the same. If you are truly interested in matters of faith, I would send you to the Coming Home Network to read the testimonies of those who have come home to Catholic faith.
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.