Posted on 05/09/2007 10:10:07 AM PDT by stfassisi
No matter what label we wear, where we live or who are ancestors are, the bottom line is Who we believe, Who we trust.
And a huge amen back to you, sister!
Catholics will take one single verse (maybe) and will build a complete doctrine around it. Reformers tend to be a tad more judicious in their treatment of God's word.
I find they’re more at home in the penumbra.
1) The RCC is certainly not united in its doctrine among its practitioners, no matter what it would like us to believe. - According to you, but not fact. Show me one DOCTRINE that members of the “RCC” disagree. True members, not those Rainbow Sash freaks for example.
2) The RCC changes its doctrines to suit the times and temperament of its magisterial class of law-givers. - That’s one interpretation of what happens in the Church. Another, is that the understanding of the original deposit of faith at Pentecost is clarified and brought to fuller meaning. Both are valid explainations of what the Church has done over time but...
Worth noting, the former position (the RCC changes its doctrines) is a rather pessimistic if not sarcastic view.
3 & 4 are all very nice sounding and feel-good, however it doesn’t really address the reality of the passage in Matthew, to whit, there can only be one Church of Christ’s. I still submit that to say this one Church has disparate doctrines is, well, quite frankly, universalism.
LOL!!! You're absolutely correct.
If those "Rainbow Sash freaks" as you call them aren't at a minimum being denied the Eucharist, i.e. aren't having their self-excommunication acknowledged and enforced by their own bishops, then I am forced to side with those bishops and to disagree with you - those "Rainbow Sash freaks" are still fully communicant/true members in good standing of the Catholic Church. And that means that their doctrines are your beliefs, too. After all, your respective bishops think you're both good Catholics.
I wonder if this a result of not believing one person has all the answers and is infallible. If we don't believe in the idea that one man, or group of men, have all the answers we have to check doctrine and belief against what Scripture tells us.
I think it also comes from the Hebrewic tradition which encourages discussion and debate, knowing that God’s word is perfect and can ultimately be understood if read correctly.
So six year olds should not trust their parents, when their parents try to prevent them from encountering pornography or slasher films?
You are obviously not a parent, or if you area a parent, you should seek help immediately.
-A8
Dr. E-Hebrewic tradition
Amen. Fostering discussion on issues is how we grow.
We'll see what steps the Vatican will take on Mexico. The Vatican publishes a lot of paper but never enforce their beliefs. Meanwhile, God's grace continues to be given by bishops who believe in abortion to public officials who believe in abortion. It's admirable that the Vatican would take a stance but it means very little if it isn't enforced within the Church.
Rule #2: Never, ever trust anyone who wants to treat you like six-year-old (unless you are one).
And that’s the first time I’ve heard the word of God equated with pornography.
Oh, curse you, Martin Luther, who made us believe we could think for ourselves and come before God without the need for priest or pope, clothed only the righteousness of Christ.
Dear Sister,with this logic all the Christians before the Bible were damned because there was no Book to save them because they followed the Sacramental System .
Ever ask yourself why the Saints and Early Church Father,s were in agreement with the Sacramental System?
Ever ask yourself why God worked so many miracles through the Saints if the Sacraments were not from Christ?
If anyone understood Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and typology of the Sacraments it was the Saints and the Early Church Fathers.
Not the confused Luther and the intellectually prideful confused Calvin!
Perhaps you can show us where the prefiguring of the Calvin and the reformers saves Christians from the Sacramental system of the Catholic Church?
Its all supposed to be in the Bible .Right?-:)
Well, here’s a couple of passages that come to mind. Notice there is no mention of sacraments having anything to do with salvation; just a mention of baptism as a symbol of identification. But, interestingly enough, they both say stay away from the traditions of men; that our salvation is by the precious blood of Christ and we are complete in Him. We do not need the needless repetition of the His sacrifice as if it wasn’t sufficient for our salvation.
Col 2:8-13, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power: In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;”
1Pe 1:18, “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:”
This Scripture DOES NOT deny the Sacraments at all!
Why do you think that the Lamb had to be eaten at the original Passover (Exodus 12:1-42)? The Lamb had to be eaten,if not your firstborn son would have been killed. At the last supper Jesus said “take this and eat it, this is my body. This is NOT a coincidence.
This is the Eucharist the New Covenant with Christ,this is Typed and Prefigured thruout Scripture.
The Early Christians saw this Clearly, EVERY SINGLE ONE WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
Some examples..
ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE
St. Cyprian of Carthage converted from paganism to Christianity around the year 246 A.D. Soon afterwards, he aspired to the priesthood and eventually was ordained Bishop of Carthage. He was beheaded for his Faith in the year 258 A.D., thus he was the first African bishop to have been martyred.,
“So too the the sacred meaning of the Pasch lies essentially in the fact, laid down in Exodus, that the lamb - slain as a type of Christ - should be eaten in one single home. God says the words: ‘In one house shall it be eaten, ye shall not cast its flesh outside.’ The flesh of Christ and the Lord’s sacred body cannot be cast outside, nor have believers any other home but the one Church.”,
-”The Unity of the Catholic Church”. Ch.8, circa 249-258 A.D.,
“They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” Justin Martyr, First Apology, 66 (c. A.D. 110-165).
“[T]he bread over which thanks have been given is the body of their Lord, and the cup His blood...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18,4 (c. A.D. 200).
“He acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as his own blood, from which he bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of creation) he affirmed to be his own body, from which he gives increase to our bodies.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, V:2,2 (c. A.D. 200).
“But what consistency is there in those who hold that the bread over which thanks have been given is the Body of their Lord, and the cup His Blood, if they do not acknowledge that He is the Son of the Creator of the world...” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV:18, 2 (c. A.D. 200).
“For the blood of the grape—that is, the Word—desired to be mixed with water, as His blood is mingled with salvation. And the blood of the Lord is twofold. For there is the blood of His flesh, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and the spiritual, that by which we are anointed. And to drink the blood of Jesus, is to become partaker of the Lord’s immortality; the Spirit being the energetic principle of the Word, as blood is of flesh. Accordingly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. And the one, the mixture of wine and water, nourishes to faith; while the other, the Spirit, conducts to immortality. And the mixture of both—of the water and of the Word—is called Eucharist, renowned and glorious grace; and they who by faith partake of it are sanctified both in body and soul.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2 (ante A.D. 202
Are these People the Heretics to you,or is it possible that your pride is holding you back to accept the truth,Dear Brother?
Good Night.
I Wish you a Blessed Evening
The Passover lamb that was eaten saved the firstborn once, at the first eating, not every time they celebrated the Passover Feast. Then it was a memorial, just like communion. You obey the command to trust Jesus, the Lamb of God, once for your salvation, the celebration of communion is the memorial, just like Passover. That’s what the 1 Pet. 1:18 passage is saying. We are not redeemed with corruptible things like bread and wine. That is superstitous tradition.
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.