Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
I have read through INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA and have found very, very little which is in accord with Orthodox theology. This, however, is:
“Every sin in fact causes a perturbation in the universal order established by God in His ineffable wisdom and infinite charity, and the destruction of immense values with respect to the sinner himself and to the human community.”
Beyond the foregoing, I am a bit stunned by what +Paul VI has written. I’m going to think about this and write something more tomorrow when I have time. My initial reaction is that this document and its teaching is a result of Anselmian atonement theology on steroids. BTW, I am fully aware of the disgraceful period of 200+ years in Orthodox history when the sale of so called “Certificates of Absolution” by venial hierarchs was common. There’s a reason we say that the floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops!
Kolo mou, whether he is in his human or divine nature, he is one and the same hypostasis called Logos. The hypostatic union did not making him into a different person, so trying to speculate from which "nature" he spoke is disingenuous given it's still one and the same Person speaking, without confusion.
"There is none good"...“But one, that is, God;”
But older manuscripts of Matthew 19:17 don't mention God.
ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτῷ τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ ἀγαθός
and He said not, “but my Father,” that thou mightest learn that He had not revealed Himself to the young man."
Nice. How does this square with
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν? (John 20:17)
The eternal Word, divine Logos, calling the Father his God?
“My initial reaction is that this document and its teaching is a result of Anselmian atonement theology on steroids.””
I don’t read it that way. Actually, the quote you pulled out and agreed with is exactly what The late great theologian FR William Most used to show how Anselm did not understand redemption fully.
Here is the link to the article(one of my favorites)
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=160
Fr William Most even puts Augustine teaching in th proper perspective as well in this article
http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.HTM
No, it did not.
" so trying to speculate from which "nature" he spoke is disingenuous given it's still one and the same Person speaking, without confusion."
Read what +John Chrysostomos wrote, Kosta. He isn't speculating about which nature spoke with the young man. He is writing about who the young man thought he was talking to.
"But older manuscripts of Matthew 19:17 don't mention God."
I know, Kosta. There is some not so interesting commentary on that. Frankly, I don't know that the mention of God adds or detracts much of anything to the verse when read in context.
"Nice. How does this square with
πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν καὶ θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν? (John 20:17)"
Here's what +John Chrysostomos says:
""Go and say unto the brethren, that I go unto My Father, and your Father, unto My God and your God." Yet He was not about to do so immediately, but after forty days. How then says He this? With a desire to raise their minds, and to persuade them that He departs into the heavens. But the, "To My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God," belongs to the Dispensation, since the "ascending" also belongs to His Flesh. For He speaks these words to one who had no high thoughts. "Is then the Father His in one way, and ours in another?" Assuredly then He is. For if He is God of the righteous in a manner different from that in which He is God of other men, much more in the case of the Son and us. For because He had said, "Say to the brethren," in order that they might not imagine any equality from this, He showed the difference. He was about to sit on His Father's throne, but they to stand by. So that albeit in His Subsistence according to the Flesh He became our Brother, yet in Honor He greatly differed from us, it cannot even be told how much." Homily LXXXVI on John.
It is really something important to understand.
Definitely. The Church is the body of men instructed by Christ to bring His people to salvation through the instruction and the sacraments of the Church (Mt 16:18, Luke 22:19, John 20:22-23, Matthew 28:18-20). It is entered through Baptism (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38) and maintained by doctrinal unity (John 17:21). While a declaration of faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior is a necessary start toward the Church, and the Protestants have made that step, they fall off the road of faith at one point or another, never uniting to Christ in the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church that He purchased on the altar of the Cross.
But lets us see what distinctions you bring up.
I keep seeing things like "the Church wrote the Scriptures" in these threads. For a non-Roman, that is an awkward way to say that God inspired the prophets and the apostles to proclaim the Truth in writing [...] and other men through prayer and study, compile what they believe are inspired and relevant texts
Yes. That is what I see also. That is the shortcut for "the Church wrote the New Testament" or "the Church compiled and explained the Old Testament".
You speak collectively where the whole entity of saved and unsaved alike who bow the knee to Rome that resolves ultimately to a single man
It ultimately resolves to Christ. The reason it is easy for me to speak of the Church as a single person -- best personified by Mary Our Mother -- that is because we seek unity and do not tolerate heresy. This is the picture of the Catholic Church:
All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:14)
The reason you cannot fathom the Church as a single person is because the Protestant communities of faith are definitionally diverse, -- and therefore are not church in the sense the word is used in its singular form in the Gospel (it is also used in the sense of "local church" allowing for plural), and by Catholics. This si not to say that there are no diversity at all in the Catholic Church: there are legitimate areas left for the individual mind, and there is a vast array of legitimate liturgical and monastioc practices. But we have doctrinal unity because Christ taught a single doctrine. We have it. You don't.
Flesh or no flesh, Kolo mou, he was sent (didn't come on his own) to become flesh; in all this the Father is greater than he, the Father is obeyed, the father's will is done, and the Father is his God. Remember it's not about flesh but about the person. If to this person, the Father is his God, then that person is no God, or so it seems to me.
No it doesn't, if by context you mean that Jesus clearly states that he is not the one who is Good.
The Theophilus: We can believe the Scriptures because they have been made alive in us via the Paraclete
Whatever the Paraclete does to you, -- I don't think He does much, judging by the Protestant fruit of denying essential scripture, -- this does not explain what makes you think the Scripture as put together by the Church (or, if you prefer, by "men inspired by God to write, and other men through prayer and study, [to] compile") is an accurate reflection of the works and words of Jesus Christ?
For example, in one place the scripture says "the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" and in another it says "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?". You are on record interpreting these words in a way that -- I am being charitable -- wanders far off the direct meaning of the text: the "bread" becomes faith or something, the "not by faith alone" becomes "by faith alone". Wouldn't your doctrines be better expressed by a different scripture? Why don't you get the Paraclete rewrite it for you?
The Church would disagree with you here. We think that Christ was capable of working miracles all His human life, beginning with the virgin conception, following with the virgin birth, walking on water, healing the sick, etc.
I responded to that cogent post a moment ago, and now am alerting the ping list.
Why is it difficult? Not at all. The scripture is filled with Catholic doctrine everywhere you look. There are things not in the scripture, and for their propaganda purposes the anti-Catholics want to talk about that, but if you stick to the things that the Scripture contains, it is all Catholic.
daniel1212: That i think is called a genesis fallacy, that the source of a truth renders all that is says to be true
But I didn't say "because the Gospel is true, the Protoevangelium of James is true" (the latter is not, I think, entirely accurate). Of course you should examine each proposition separately. All I am pointing out is another fallacy: that because the Church in one place said A and in another place said B, and B is not a whole subset of A, then B must be false. Yet that is the usual "where is that in the scripture?" line of reasoning.
the problem is that of an assuredly infallible magisterium
Yes, it is logically speaking somewhat of a problem. If Christianity were a branch of mathematics that would be a real difficulty. This is the same difficulty anyone with any kind of authority has: -- how do I know your badge is for real, officer?. As the matter stands, there is an assent of faith involved. (There is also an assent of faith involved in any geometry or algebra, but that is another topic). I believe that the Church has correctly rendered to me certain historical facts, many of miraculous nature; I also believe that the Church can lead me to salvation today dues to her unique relationship to God. Were I to discover some illogicality in what the Church porposes for my salvation, I would, no different than the Bereans' intention was, lose my faith. The teaching of the Living Magisterium is certainly open to critical review; no one is held inside the Church by force, and many indeed leave. The reason Catholics remian Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.
On the other hand, the Protestant doctrines are unbelievably distant from the Holy Scripture. How, for example, do you arrive from "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24) to its direct reversal? And that is not some peripheral stuff like your eternal premillenialism versus antelapsarianism (did I get that right?) struggle. This i the cornerstone of Priotestant theology, yet is does not stand a one-minute scriptural scrutiny.
[6] If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth. [7] But if we walk in the light, as he also is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. [8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. [10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
Yes, so those who "walk in the light", like Mary did all her life, do so because "the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth [them] from all sin". Mary was sinless because Christ saved her as well (Luke 1:47). Note that she never said that she was sinless, she simply was.
No, not all of them; that indeed would be silly. Who, for example, would believe for a minute that Luther's or Calvin's ideas were superior to anything?
The ideas are superior to other ideas when they are inspired by God. Which brings us back to the authority of the Church:
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (John 14:26)
read them
I read and respond to everything addressed to me on this thread, excepting evidently contentless posts.
The basis of your beliefs: the existence, divinity, death and resurrection of Christ, the importance of faith in Him, the expression of these beliefs in the Scripture, -- is what the Church gave you, under divine guidance. You are correct that the divine revelation is not limited to the New Testament, nor even to the Scripture as a whole. The created world and its laws are, for example, a part of the divine revelation that science reveals to you. I did not take claim for something the Church did not do, just for the things she did do.
Interesting theory. The angel says (I quote in full)
"[30] ...Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God. [31] Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus. [32] He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever. [33] And of his kingdom there shall be no end.".
Acciording to you, Mary listens to that and thinks, "yikes, premarital sex!"
Seriously? Where is that "immediacy", by the way?
No, it is not, in either sense. It is about one hypostasis joined in hypostatic union in the Ousia of the Most Most Holy Trinity. The hypostasis singly or in hypostatic union is Ο ΩΝ. How else would you have True God and True Man speak to man? I'll grant you that a command like "Bow, bow, ye lower middle classes!Bow, bow, ye tradesmen, bow, ye masses!" might have made matters more clear, but it didn't work that way, God's ways not being our ways, Kosta mou.
Off to watch some mindless sci-fi! :)
The orthodox faith has since the Second Ecumenical Council officially believed that God the Father is without a cause, unbegotten of anything, and not dependent on anything for his existence, whereas the Son and the Spirit are caused by the Father and exist because of him, whereas he does not exist because of them.
Alright, if the Son and Spirit can both be caused, come into existence, AND be eternal all at the same time, then this faith is definitely too hard for me. :) It's interesting to study though.
NOPE
By a wide margin.
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.