Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
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
A dead language.
The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have always had their individual personhood (identity) and that will never change. Therefore, the Father and Son will not "become" God, as they are both already God. They are simultaneously both God and individual Persons within the Trinity.
Jesus did not ever claim to be God. Rather, He said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me,..." and this is the same he asks for you.
Yes, Jesus did claim to be God. Here is an example:
The Jews tried to stone Him because they knew EXACTLY what Jesus was claiming. They knew their scriptures, including:
What other reason could they have possibly had for immediately wanting to stone Him than for claiming to BE God?
Start at this page in this very thread.....
907 was the exorcism prayer.
Read down through 915 to get the gist of the conversation.
On the contrary about Latin. The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic and the NT in Greek and Aramaic.
The Latin Vulgate came around much later is is a translation itself. Anyone who uses that as the basis for a translation is using a translation of a translation, which allows for even more error to creep in as even more is lost in multiple translations.
Going back to the oldest original language manuscripts gives the best opportunity for as accurate a translation as possible.
The Jews tried to stone Him because they knew EXACTLY what Jesus was claiming. They knew their scriptures, including:
Ex. 3:13-14 : 13 Moses said to God, Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you, and they ask me, What is his name? Then what shall I tell them? 14 God said to Moses, I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: I AM has sent me to you. What other reason could they have possibly had for immediately wanting to stone Him than for claiming to BE God?"
Very Good, FK!
"But wherefore said He not, "Before Abraham was, I was," instead of "I Am"? As the Father uses this expression, "I Am," so also does Christ; for it signifies continuous Being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to them to be blasphemous. Now if they could not bear the comparison with Abraham, although this was but a trifling one, had He continually made Himself equal to the Father, would they ever have ceased casting stones at Him?" +John Chrysostom Homily 55 on the Gospel of John
STF-Christianity to me is not easy,it costs us something.
BB-”So, when Jesus said:
Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. (Matt. 11:29-30)
He was exaggerating? Lying? Minimizing? What?””
This does not mean we will not suffer persecution by denying ourselves,it means we can find comfort and peace in the persecution by trusting in Christ,dear sister.Truly denying ourselves is NOT any easy thing to do
From the words of the late Bishop Sheen...
Unless there is a cross, in our lives, there will never be a resurrection. The Christian Law of Life IS We have to die in order to live (cf Mt 10:38-39). Now I do not mean and He did not mean physically dying, He meant mortification, self-denial. The application of the Cross in our lives. So that, unless we die to ourselves we cannot live with Him. We do not like the Cross in our lives. As a matter of fact, we would like to escape it thats the essence of the demonic, the escape from the mortification, the Cross and the penance
Penance is not Scriptural.
Once we’re forgiven, the sin debt is gone.
People want escape from penance because it’s one of those Pharisaical burdens the Catholic church imposes on its adherents that contributes nothing to one’s salvation or spiritual growth.
Jesus died to pay the penalty for our sins so that we don’t have to.
The organization that established canon and compiled, published and defended the Bible was Catholic in the truest definition of the word. All who later split from this body forfeited their claim to a Catholic identity. Those who remained faithful are still in Communion with the original Catholics.
I agree 100%
"Going back to the oldest original language manuscripts gives the best opportunity for as accurate a translation as possible."
One would think so, but sometimes the oldest extant copies of a piece of scripture, OT or NT, are a mess of mistakes and amendments and emendations. There are no really ancient complete copies of the NT, for example (there is a fragment of +John from the early 2nd century...in Greek). As for Hebrew in the OT, well the oldest copies of the Greek Septuagint are older than the Hebrew OT used by Protestants or Jews for that matter. I think the oldest fragment of the OT in Hebrew is from the 1st century BC.
Some are predestined to believe the worst about others.
First, there is no single Catholic Bible recognized since 1750 that contains the error you speak of . The Catholic Bible you are referring to is the Douay-Rheims Bible that was translated from the Latin Vulgate and published in 1611 by English Catholics living in exile in Douay, France. It was soon recognized to contain numerous errors and was replaced with the Challoner-Rheims version in 1750.
The error in Genesis 3:15 that you are so convinced are the result of a grand conspiracy concern who will crush the serpent's head and who the serpent is trying to strike. The Douay-Rheims uses feminine pronouns -- she and her -- implying that the woman is the person being spoken of in this part of the verse. All subsequent Catholic translations, in use since use masculine pronouns -- he and his.
Most scholars believe the reason for the error is traceable to the manuscript used by the Douay-Rheims translators. Subsequent translations follow what the original Hebrew of the passage says. The Douay-Rheims, however, is following a manuscript variant found in many early Fathers and some editions of the Vulgate (but not the original; Jerome followed the Hebrew text in his edition of the Vulgate). It is believed the error originated as a copyist error when a scribe failed to take note that the subject of the verse had shifted from the woman to the seed of the woman.
Of course not. Here is what +John Chrysostom says about the verse:
"Next, having brought them by His words to an earnest desire, and having signified His unspeakable power, He after that invites them, saying, Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Not this or that person, but all that are in anxiety, in sorrows, in sins. Come, not that I may call you to account, but that I may do away your sins; come, not that I want your honor, but that I want your salvation. For I, saith He, will give you rest. He said not, I will save you, only; but what was much more, I will place you in all security.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Thus, be not afraid, saith He, hearing of a yoke, for it is easy: fear not, because I said, a burden, for it is light.
And how said He before, The gate is narrow and the way strait? Whilst thou art careless, whilst thou art supine; whereas, if thou duly perform His words, the burden will be light; wherefore also He hath now called it so.
But how are they duly performed? If thou art become lowly, and meek, and gentle. For this virtue is the mother of all strictness of life. Wherefore also, when beginning those divine laws, with this He began. And here again He doeth the very same, and exceeding great is the reward He appoints. For not to another only dost thou become serviceable; but thyself also above all thou refreshest, saith He. For ye shall find rest unto your souls.
Even before the things to come, He gives thee here thy recompense, and bestows the prize already, making the saying acceptable, both hereby, and by setting Himself forward as an example. For, Of what art thou afraid? saith He, lest thou shouldest be a loser by thy low estate? Look to me, and to all that is mine; learn of me, and then shalt thou know distinctly how great thy blessing. Seest thou how in all ways He is leading them to humility? By His own doings: Learn of me, for I am meek. By what themselves are to gain; for, Ye shall find, saith He, rest unto your souls. By what He bestows on them; for, I too will refresh you, saith He. By rendering it light; For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. So likewise doth Paul, saying, For the present light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Homily XXXVIII on Matthew
Humility, meekness, "dying to the self" and becoming like God, bb.
“”Once were forgiven, the sin debt is gone.””
Our sins effect fellow man and our sins can cause fellow man to sin against others because of what we did.
Those who don’t believe in penance are self centered and are truly not sorry or they could care enough to do penance for the sins against fellow man by acting Christ like and imitating Him
Basically,denying penance is being a lazy sinner
MM-””Penance is not Scriptural.””
“And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him.
 For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.  Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct?  But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.  Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live?  And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.
 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.  Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees,  And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed” Heb 12:5-13
So was Hebrew until 1949.
No it wasn't. I was the author of #907 and I merely stated that an exorcism would do number of Freepers some good. The mod thought that was flame baiting and removed it. I stand behind my original statement.
Correct. The appearance is here to indicate the real Eucharistic presence specifically of Christ, apart from the ordinary omnipresence of God.
The only place where Christs blood was offered was in heaven. (Hebrews 9:12)
"By his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption." Indeed. Ther Eucharist is not a separate sacrifice but that very sacrifice described in Hebrews 9, applied to us personally.
Everyone can read his personal theology into art, of course. My comment was regarding early Renaisance; I am not a big fan of late and Northern Renaissance; the authentic Renaiissance ended, I believe, with Memling, and what remained was in transition to mannerism. Regarding Protestant influences later on, perhaps.
What makes early Renaissance Catholic is not just the deviotional nature but also the celebration of humanity in its joyful redeemed state. That incarnationalism is wholly foreign to Calvin, but can be mistaken for humanism, especially by secular or Protestant art critics.
This is the joyful face of the Church:
By the way, anyone wondering why the Catohlic Church is "she" needs to look at this or similar painting.
What is to explain? The passage says everything the Catholic Church teaches: that sin is redeemed by the blood of Christ, in which we have faith (hm...); that grace alone justifies us given us freely without merit on our part. You did not include the remainder of the passage but had you read a couple verses down you would have seen that the thrust here is with the impossiblity of salvation by "works of the law", as the Jews believed. The passage does not say that we are saved by faith alone, and we do not teach that we are saved by works alone. We believe what St. Paul teaches. You don't: you add your own spin to his belief and in other places you ingore the Gospel altogether. You, for example, do not believe that His Blood is present in the Eucharist even though that belief is cited here as saving faith.
Then her question is meaningless, because naturally women get to intimately know their husband in order to have children born to them.
Old Reggie cites Matthew 26:26-28
I don't understand what is supposed to follow from Matthew 26:26-28 that is contrary to what I said. The species contain body and blood of Jesus and since He is resurrected in the body, blood and flesh are united in Him again. The Apostle ate the consecrated bread and consecrated wine and the two united in their mouths to form the Whole Risen Christ. The two species, by the way, are united also during the Consecration as a part of the consecrated host is dropped into the consecrated wine.
So Paul did not mean it when he wrote "will render to every man according to his deeds"?
Matthew 25, "The parable of the Talents," also is devoid of any indication of "salvation by works"
Really? So Jesus did not mean it when He said "possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, etc"?
Works are the result of salvation.
Where is that nonsense in the scripture? Romans 2 and Matthews 25 teach the opposite: those who do good works are saved, those who don't are condemned. Not complicated.
For Gods sake, dont tell me you dont understand Latin?
Quod nesciunt eos non interficiet.
The RM has decreed that any posts in a foreign language which are not very common phrases must be translated.
Next time, just post:
"Heu, modo itera omnia quae mihi nunc nuper narravisti, sed nunc Anglice."
["Listen, would you repeat everything you just told me, only this time say it in English."]
>> “So Paul did not mean it when he wrote ‘will render to every man according to his deeds?’ “<<
Where do you gather salvation out of that? Its just not there.
Here is what Paul said WRT salvation:
Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
So, you see, we cannot do good works unless we are already saved.
But Jesus did tell them to do it in remembrance of Him.
Yes. I know. It is your second post I am reading today that does not tell me anything I don't know or the Church does not teach.
He certainly was known as "Peter" prior to your magic "rock" event. [cites several scriptures where name Peter was used prior to the "Thou art Peter" episode.
It doesn't follow that he was. The Evangleist, writing at the time when Peter was known cheifly as Peter, naturally refers to Peter by the name most likely to be known to the reader, Peter.
But that is n ot even an important point. Let us postulate that Jesus actually had renamed Peter earlier. But in Matthew 16 the reason for the renaming is given. So anyway, the connection is between Peter and the rock on which the Church is built.
It was Peters' faith, not Peter himself upon which Jesus built His Church.
Yes, you can say that. Generally, when people are given tasks it is because of some ability that they have pertaining to the task. In this case, the exceptional ability was St. Peter's faith. That made him pope.
Your reply has no relationship whatsoever to my post #5120
In 5120 you mentioned the possibility that some letters of St. Ignatius are not written by him, but the letter I am focused on, to the Smyrneans, is not among those thus suspected.
read the whole story of Joseph's reaction when he found she was pregnant
Yes, Joseph was upset that she was pregnant, but how is that helpful to undertand why a girl about to get married wonders how is she to have children PRIOR to becoming pregnant?
I am tired
That's OK. I am at times tired too. Thank you for your company.
Annalex: You were there? [at the times of Mary]
Old Reggie: Maybe.
No you were not, but somebody Catholic was present. St. Luke, for example.
Who has bewitched these foolish Galatians?
It doesn't of course. John 3:16 simply says that you have to believe Christ in order to be saved by Christ. So you have, among other things, do what He says, and that includes the good works that He teaches. Surely John 3:16 does not say "Beleive in Christ, except what He teaches in Matthew 5-7".
I KNOW Catholics do not believe in everything Christ said, because I once was one and rarely did we even read for ourselves what God's word said
That the Catholics (surely many Catholics) rarely and poorely study the scripture and instead rely on their priest to explain it to them does not mean they do not believe everything Christ said. They simply get it through the mediation of the Church who, as we know, produced the written record of what Christ said to begin with. You, on the other hand, get it through the spin of Protestant charlatans. So who is ahead fulfilling the commandment of John 3:16??
>> “ but somebody Catholic was present. St. Luke, for example” <<
Impossible; the catholic apostasy wasn’t invented until over two centuries after Luke died.
Dear annalex, any works that one does with the motivation of acheiving salvation are as filthy rags, and cannot benefit your state.
Only the works of one that is saved can be good.
Let's look at that context:
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in Gods sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his bloodto be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.
So you see, I hope, that we are justified by faith. There is a Law of Works (which you seem to fancy), and there is a Law of Faith. We ARE saved by faith alone, and it is your "spin", or the spin you have heard all your life, rather, that insults and ignores the true Gospel.
The idea that this passage gives credence to His Blood is present in the Eucharist is nowhere to be found here much less that belief in that idea is required for "saving faith". When we trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, we BY FAITH receive him and this act of genuine faith is what puts into place the redemption of our souls - we do not have to continuously receive him through a reinactment of the sacrifice of the Mass in order to be saved. But go right ahead and believe that, I know my words will never convince anyone, it is only the Holy Spirit with each individual heart who can do that.
So, you proved my point. Thank you. The point was that you claim "Protestants" must put their spin on verses of scripture, and I showed you that you do exactly that. You HAVE to, because, to you verses in context cannot mean what they say, they have to be spun to adhere to the Catholic Church's dogmas.
The mistranslation in Genesis 3:15 was not simply an error, unless the translators were so incompetent that they could not distinguish the difference between *he* and *she*, in which case they wouldn’t have been qualified to translate something as simple as *Mary had a little lamb*.
They could not possibly have been so stupid to not tell the difference. Especially since they were apparently able to correctly translate the personal pronouns in the whole rest of the OT.
It had to have been deliberate.
What a pathetic, transparent attempt to shore up the idolatrous doctrine of Maryolatry. If you can’t find Scripture to support it, just make it up. If that doesn’t work, appeal to *tradition* to override Scripture.
Instead of penance every time you commit the sin, how about repenting and not doing it any more?
Or don't you think that that doesn't show that someone is sorry enough for their sin or that they don't care enough?
Let me ask y’all this question. Do you believe Jesus Christ is in Heaven as a human being? Is he still in the human body he wore while in his incarnated state on earth?
Metmom:Instead of penance every time you commit the sin, how about repenting and not doing it any more?
Or don't you think that that doesn't show that someone is sorry enough for their sin or that they don't care enough?
Or how about when we sin against someone we go to them and ask forgiveness of them and make amends to them for their loss, if possible? Isn't that what Christ told us?
This idea of "doing penance" comes from the "deep" thinkers of the "Church" who envisioned some "disruption in the force" kind of happening and how the sufferings of some could make up for this disruption and, all the while, totally leaving out the entire purpose of the cross of Christ.
The Sermon on the Mount is not a dissertation on how to be saved by works any more than the Law is a dissertation on how to be saved by works.
It was an expounding on the Law, showing what the true intent was. If keeping the letter of the OT Law was unable to save anyone, then what Jesus preached in the Sermon on the Mount is incapable of saving anyone because no one person, save Christ Himself, is capable of keeping the intent of the Law as presented in the Sermon on the Mount.
The Law was put into effect to lead us to Christ by showing us that we could NOT meet the righteous requirements of God and thus show us the need for a Savior.
What we earn for what we do is death and hell. Anyone who appeals to their own good works for salvation to God is going to be judged by them and that WILL result in condemnation. The only way the works could be counted as worthy is if the motivation for them were entirely pure and if the person were doing the good works to earn salvation, that would immediately disqualify them because the motivation would be self-seeking and impure.
Not only that, but since all it takes is one sin to render someone guilty of breaking the entire Law, once someone sinned one time, it wouldn’t matter if they were perfect for the entire rest of their lives. It’s too late. The wages of sin is death. All it takes is one. There is no good works outweighing bad works. That’s not God’s economy.
Galatians 2:15-21 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vainif indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faithjust as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christs, then you are Abrahams offspring, heirs according to promise.
Oh, but it's so much easier to take a few trips around the Rosary and say a few dozen Our Fathers.
I am so humbled by God's mercy and grace that he looked beyond all my faults and saw my need, like the song says. How can someone hope to stand before God with the filthy rags of their own goodness and merit and expect him to favor that over the simple child-like faith in Jesus as their Savior? "Oh, NO! That's "easy believism.", they say. How to get through to them that it is because of God's undeserved mercy, his unfathomable grace that we are not consumed?
I will not throw his grace back in his face and say, "No thanks, I'll do it my way.". I will fall upon his mercy seat with the blood of Jesus Christ washed all over every inch of me and proclaim, "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise.". For I was lost and now am found. I was without hope and I have been given glory by his amazing grace!
If we can earn it, it’s not mercy.
If we can work off the penalty, there’s been no forgiveness, but rather the payment of a debt.
I'm sure there are those who choose to believe that because it fits their agenda rather than the facts. I'm afraid, however, you are going to have to blame Saint Jerome for the error, not those translating his Vulgate into English or German.
He (הוּא) in the original Hebrew is masculine. It is pronounced hoo and can also mean it. In the Septuagint, however, it was translated as autos he, indicating that the passage should be understood as a Messianic prophecy about Jesus Christ alone crushing the head. He [Jesus] will crush the serpents head.
However, St. Jerome in his Latin Vulgate translation made a major error changing it or he into she using the feminine pronoun ipsa instead of autos in the Latin. Roman Catholic scholars who accepted the Latin Vulgate then translated Genesis 3:15 in their Douay-Rheims Bible as:
"Inimicitias ponam inter te et mulierem, et semen tuum et semen illius: ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo eius."
I will put enmities between you and the woman, between your offspring and her offspring. She will crush your head, and you will lie in wait for her heel.
The Neo-Vulgate (Nova Vulgata), the revised Latin version authorized by the Vatican, corrected the error and changed it from ipsa to ipsum in the Latin.
It doesn’t matter. Regardless of the language, if the phrase is not commonly known, e.g. adios, then translate it to English.
Which is exactly to a tee what happened in my own conversion to Christ. Read the ten commandments....sense of guilt and hopelessness because if you sin in ANY of the LEAST of the commandments you are guilty of them all! Just as it is written.
What is interesting is The commandments and a few childhood stories about God and Jesus was all I knew.......and yet when I asked God to reveal Himself, if He was indeed real, and began to look in the Bible to see what it said about Him, I ran square into the commandments...and when He reveals you are doomed thru those commandments you do fear God.
But when you seek Him He will bring you beyond the commandments to Jesus as your Savior.. as your search continues. And the moment of decision is before you.
Not once was did the catholic church come into the equation....nor any of it's endless literature or writings. It was all about the scriptures, which attest of Christ, and those God brought in my path who used the scriptures, along with my own reading and study and personal prayers.
So these scripture references you have used, Metmom and Boatbums,...ring very close to my heart and mind. ......the end result, which was really the beginning,....was I said yes to Christ.
The thief on the cross next to Christ had no opportunity at all for any works....yet Christ said he'd be with Him that very day.
Hope my occult tag line is exempt..
Those without the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist don’t worship as Christians have since Acts - as we also see in the Catacombs of Rome and the Church throughout history.
Remembrance only is a very recent innovation.
And without the Eucharist and Mass, “worship” becomes something quite different - lacking in worship consisting only of prayer, lecture and song.
So much of Christian worship and faith was lost for many outside the Church: Sacraments, and as in the creeds: Communion of Saints and One, Holy and Apostolic Church.
“Remembrance only is a very recent innovation”.
The ceremony Jesus instituted was quite simple, not the ritual you refer to. And it was THAT he said to do in remembrance of his death.
“And without the Eucharist and Mass, worship becomes something quite different - lacking in worship consisting only of prayer, lecture and song.”
Doing something in remembrance does not change what you are doing. It’s not mutually exclusive: Holy Eucharist and doing in remembrance. So the point is a non sequitur.