Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
I noticed that you ignored or didn’t see my post at 388 in answer to 259
Petronski said: “You are also, of course, entitled to your own personal interpretation of scripture.”
**********************************************************
It's time for the Pepsi challenge, the Degree “all in moment” folks!!
Petronski - You state that xzins is wrong in saying the following items are not provable by scripture. Very well. Prove then, purely from scripture, these things:
immaculate conception, assumption, co-redemptrix.
This is a sincere, respectful request. It is not a request to set up some good old fashioned RCC bashing (which I’m soooooooooooooooooooooo tired of hearing all non RCCr’s do which is ridiculous to imply), it’s a request for proof, scripturally, of those things you state are provable. All I want to see is an answer, not a diversion, not a new topic, not a question to turn it back on me to prove they are not provable, but rather a simple answer to defend your position.
Before you even ask, infer or say I’m bashing I’ll share my beliefs so you can focus on your answers. I believe that Mary is the most blessed woman ever as scripture tells us she will be called. She carried Christ inside her and was/is his mother, how could she not be?!? She is an exceptional example of being devoted to Christ as she recognized the need for a savior for all mankind, including herself. She is most undoubtedly in heaven with her Son. I believe her example of being devoted to her Son is what we should be, devoted to Christ and to spreading the good news of His sacrifice to save us from our sin. I don’t know if she was or was not a virgin forever. I don’t believe that fact is intrinsically interwoven into the question of salvation. If she devoted herself to be a virgin for all her days or if God made that so it is great either way - in other words it does not impact salvation. Could we be saved if she was either or? Of course. I believe the Holy Spirit could have in fact made her perfectly pure when Christ was conceived and growing in her womb, however I do not believe Mary was without sin in all her days. That is not to say God could not have done that if he chose, he clearly can do whatever His will desires. I don’t know if Mary was assumpted to heaven or not. If she was, then it is a blessing for her to be brought to heaven to be in God’s presence. If she was not and was brought to the glory of God’s presence that way then that is a blessing as well. The point is it is not how she arrives that is important but rather that she would be blessed to be in God’s presence forever. I believe it always, has been, is and always will be all about God the Father God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. We all are God’s workmanship built to do the works He desires to do thru us. We are His servants. We are his subjects who He has chosen to save. How lucky and blessed are we?
Thank you and Blessings to you in Christ
PM
That is why the gospels are technically OT . They cover the period of time when Jesus lived and ministered, died and rose again.
Jesus lived under the law in the Ot period of sacrifices etc.
The church was born at Pentecost and that was after the Ascension.
That is the start of the NT writings which were instructional/correctional letters to the church and of course the final prophecy of John to the church about the end of time.
470 posted on 06/02/2007 1:57:28 PM MDT by ears_to_hear
However it does occur in the LXX. Act 7:38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness Only if you assume that the word Ekkelsia (church) did not exist in the LXX.
b'shem Yah'shua
Stephen points us to it. Act 7:37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel,
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren,
like unto me; him shall ye hear.
with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sinai, and
[with] our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
I am willing to defend my assertion.
Proposition: The immaculate conception, the assumption, and the coredemption of Mary cannot be demonstrated from the old & new testaments of the bible.
Psalm 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 19:8 The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
Psalm 19:9
The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
19:10 More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb .
19:11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward
1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Matthew 6:11
Give us this day our daily bread
1 Peter 2:2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby 2:3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
Those sincerely interested in an answer will make quick study of the topic on the online Catechism of the Catholic Church, here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
I reread this and I don't happen to agree. The scriptures are the inspired word of God. He used men to write them. He spoke to them through the Holy Spirit. Check out the 1st chapter of John.
In that “new and eternal covenant” fulfilled in the New Testament, God identifies Himself in a direct manner: “God is love.”
He demonstrated this by sending His Son, to show us what love is.
“In the beginning.........and the WORD was GOD”
~Deus Caritas Est~
“God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him” (1 Jn 4:16). These words from the First Letter of John express with remarkable clarity the heart of the Christian faith: the Christian image of God and the resulting image of mankind and its destiny. In the same verse, Saint John also offers a kind of summary of the Christian life: “We have come to know and to believe in the love God has for us”.
We have come to believe in God's love: in these words the Christian can express the fundamental decision of his life. Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction. Saint John's Gospel describes that event in these words: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should ... have eternal life” (3:16)
Amen.
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" -- Ephesians 1:13
~Deus Caritas Est~
17. "True, no one has ever seen God as he is. And yet God is not totally invisible to us; he does not remain completely inaccessible. God loved us first, says the Letter of John quoted above (cf. 4:10), and this love of God has appeared in our midst. He has become visible in as much as he “has sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him” (1 Jn 4:9). God has made himself visible: in Jesus we are able to see the Father (cf. Jn 14:9). Indeed, God is visible in a number of ways. In the love-story recounted by the Bible, he comes towards us, he seeks to win our hearts, all the way to the Last Supper, to the piercing of his heart on the Cross, to his appearances after the Resurrection and to the great deeds by which, through the activity of the Apostles, he guided the nascent Church along its path. Nor has the Lord been absent from subsequent Church history: he encounters us ever anew, in the men and women who reflect his presence, in his word, in the sacraments, and especially in the Eucharist. In the Church's Liturgy, in her prayer, in the living community of believers, we experience the love of God, we perceive his presence and we thus learn to recognize that presence in our daily lives. He has loved us first and he continues to do so; we too, then, can respond with love. God does not demand of us a feeling which we ourselves are incapable of producing. He loves us, he makes us see and experience his love, and since he has “loved us first”, love can also blossom as a response within us."
Sale of Indulgences Affirmed (1343)
It was on this date, January 27, 1343, that Pope Clement VI issued a bull, Unigenitus, officially reaffirming that the Catholic Church can grant remission of sin through indulgences. The bull says,
Upon the altar of the Cross Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent ... thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin.
In other words, says the Catholic Encyclopedia, "the source of indulgences is constituted by the merits of Christ and the saints." The scheme is fortuitous on a number of levels: the Christian can avoid the expense of a journey to Rome in a Jubilee Year (first instituted by Boniface VIII in 1300 and carried into the modern era by John Paul II as recently as 2000); the horrific doctrine of Hell is mitigated (except for non-Catholics) by the invention of Purgatory, where minor sins can be expunged before going to heaven; and the Catholic Church can make piles of money by "taxing" the granting of "remittance" of sin: that is, granting a partial pardon, or shortening of torture, in the afterlife.
.....
The chief abusers, after indulgences were instituted in large measure by Boniface, were the anti-pope John XXIII (1400-1415), described by the Council of Constance as a seller of benefices, bulls, sacraments, ordinations, consecrations and anything else that would bring in money, Leo X (1513-1521), who condemned Luther and dispensed indulgences to build St. Peter's in Rome[5], and Clement VIII (1592-1605), a notorious nepotist, who showered his relatives with gold from sold indulgences.
http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0127b-almanac.htm
Can you do me a favor and show me where in post #461 this statement is contradicted:
“No pope ever approved of the sale of indulgences as a proper act.”
I read your post and no where saw where Pius IV said anything about selling indulgences. He also never said in what you quoted anything about the selling of indulgences being a proper act.
Pius IV was AGAINST the selling of indulgences. He was not against indulgences. My statement, and the one I was responding to, were about the selling of indulgences.
This is from the Council of Trent, in fact: “But desiring that the abuses which have become connected with them, and by reason of which this excellent name of indulgences is blasphemed by the heretics, be amended and corrected it ordains in a general way by the present decree that all evil traffic in them, which has been a most prolific source of abuses among the Christian people, be absolutely abolished.”
I just read the entire section on Mary. Three verses of scripture. So that’s it? Three short verses are the proof of these three concepts? Is that true or am I missing something?
bttt
You wrote:
“Sale of Indulgences Affirmed (1343)”
Where in the document is there a mention of the sale of indulgences as proper?
Also, just one quick point about Ronald Bruce Meyer. On his website he wrote this: “It wasn’t entirely the monks’ fault: in the greatest abbey of the 13th century, the Abbey of St. Gall, not a single monk could read!”
Really? So in the thirteenth century not a single monk at St. Gall could read? Really? So the monastery that was most famous for its library and book making was entirely illiterate?
Pray tell how did Ekkehard VI write his life of St. Nokter Balbulus in 1214? And who at St. Gall made the mid-thirteenth century copy of the famous mss. of the Nibelungenlied called “The Vulgate” version (which was copied in three different hands by the way)?
http://www.stiftsbibliothek.ch/index.asp
http://www.cesg.unifr.ch/de/index.htm
Maybe Meyer should read Anna A. Grotans’ Reading in Medieval St. Gall (Cambridge Studies in Palaeography and Codicology), 2006. I think that would help.
Even NewAdvent must be confused because it spends pages and pages on giving this kind of convoluted explanation of their anti-Biblical musings...
"...A further distinction is that between perpetual indulgences, which may be gained at any time, and temporary,which are available on certain days only, or within certain periods. Real indulgences are attached to the use of certain objects (crucifix, rosary, medal); personal are those which do not require the use of any such material thing, or which are granted only to a certain class of individuals, e.g. members of an order or confraternity. The most important distinction, however, is that between plenary indulgences and partial. By a plenary indulgence is meant the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory. A partial indulgence commutes only a certain portion of the penalty; and this portion is determined in accordance with the penitential discipline of the early Church. To say that an indulgence of so many days or years is granted means that it cancels an amount of purgatorial punishment equivalent to that which would have been remitted, in the sight of God, by the performance of so many days or years of the ancient canonical penance. Here, evidently, the reckoning makes no claim to absolute exactness; it has only a relative value."
PartiaL indulgence, perpetual indulgence, temporary indulgence, personal indulgence, plenary indulgence, real indulgence...
Say, what?
Do the writers of this have any idea that none of this stuff is in the Bible? It's all fiction.
Are you fiction? You’re not mentioned in the Bible so you must be fiction, right?
A former Protestant explains indulgences: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp
Also, please note, no one here yet has offered a single scrap of evidence that the Church or any pope even ever approved of the sale of indulgences as a proper act. How much you hate indulgences is irrelevant as to that point.
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.