Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

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


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,201-6,2506,251-6,3006,301-6,350 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: Kolokotronis

Oh those wicked, WICKED Westerners!!! If only all of them could be more Greek!!!

G’nite, K. No eye gouging or hand chopping while I’m gone!


6,251 posted on 12/29/2010 8:45:20 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6244 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom; boatbums; Forest Keeper

I was good all night. Not one hand chopped nor an eye gouged!

I stumbled on the article linked below early this morning. My initial reaction is that the writer ought just to become Orthodox and be done with it, but you folks might find it interesting. Much of what he says is surprisingly insightful coming from an American Protestant, though I may be being unfair since the flood of converts to Orthodoxy we are seeing especially here in No. America is predominantly made up of evangelicals, many of them former seminarians so maybe your co-religionists know, or are open to more than I had imagined.

http://www.ovrlnd.com/GeneralInformation/Oden_Method.html


6,252 posted on 12/30/2010 5:54:23 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6251 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom
It says *all* therefore Jesus, being with them, drank it as well

The blood was offered to the disciples. Jesus had no reason to drink his own blood, hello! he didn't have to do that in memory of him, LOL.

Just who does the Priest represent in the Eucharist?

Does the Priest drink the wine?

Would it proper for the Priest to drink the wine if the "Church" believed Jesus did not?

Just asking.

6,253 posted on 12/30/2010 9:36:54 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6228 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; metmom; Kolokotronis
“”Believers were called Christians first in Antioch. Not called Catholics.””

Yes they were called catholic’s,mm.

Please post other historical writings from someone who lived in Antioch that prove the following wrong?

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

...and Ignatius of Antioch believed in the True Presence in Eucharist completely opposite of protestant heretics denying it

You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?

6,254 posted on 12/30/2010 9:44:23 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6246 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
Thank you for the article and I'm glad you still have two eyes for me to poke my fingers into.

Oden seems to make much of consensus and the the assembly of some body of belief and practice that Western, Eastern, Reformers can sign off on so as to present a more unified, and therefore effective, face to the unbelieving world.
Not an unusual or original idea, perhaps the depth and “systematic” aspects of his efforts are.

He mentions two subjects that I would comment further on: The first is what is oft called the “Grand Commission” of Matthew 28:19,20, which evangelicals have taken as their marching orders to convert the world.

The second is the idea that such conversion or efforts to do so would expand the ‘kingdom of God on earth’.

That ‘Grand Commission’ made every Christian a preacher, a minister of the word, primitive Christianity was not a light to be hidden under a basket and thus that light was spread far and wide with the hope of reward for obedience to that commission under trial, even to the point of death.

From what Paul wrote to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 4:8,9)it's clear some wanted their reward, the king part of ruling as ‘kings and priests’ (Rev. 20:4-6) without the nastiness of having to die and wait.

In contradiction of Peter's admonishment (1 Peter 5:1-4) they weren't going to be overseer's but “Bishops” and wear that “crown of glory” now.
But preaching the word, the Good News, to an oft times hostile world, is humbling work and However is whole world going to be converted and establish God's Kingdom on Earth if it has to be done one convert at a time?

Instead of Jesus’ “Caesar’s things to Caesar’s and God's things to God”, why not enlist the power of the state and meld the interests into a thousand year reign of the church enforced by the state. The Kingdom of God established with a Bible in one hand and a sword in the other.

Neither ‘traditionalists’ nor ‘reformers’ can disavow their “Fathers” practices, one because they can't error, the other because it was indispensable to their very existence.

Of these a new consensus orthodoxy is to be formed? That's scary!!

6,255 posted on 12/30/2010 10:16:15 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6252 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; stfassisi; metmom
"You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you? "

In the context of Christianity and the comments of our Holy and God Bearing Father +Ignatius of Antioch, those of us who are members of The Church, as in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, be it Orthodox, Latin Rite or Oriental Orthodox, with the exception of some very few, uninformed, Latin Rite members of FR, all deny that there is any distinction at all between those two words, capital "C" or not. This, by the way, has been the position of The Church since the first years of the 2nd century as is apparent from +Ignatius' warnings against the teachings of extra ecclesial heretics. I assure you that sfa shares these sentiments.

6,256 posted on 12/30/2010 10:52:59 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6254 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; OLD REGGIE; stfassisi; metmom
If memory serves, this is a distinction without a difference. As a descriptor, Catholic and Christian described the same Church. Until the Reformation and denominations came along, both terms described the same Church.

What becomes a bit odd is Protestant's reciting credo some form of: One Holy (C)atholic and Apostolic.

It would not describe the same, or universal, beliefs; and, with reference to the article Kolo posted, "Apostolic" is not what it once meant - either in terms of authority or what was believed and taught by the Apostles. As in the recent discussion of the Real Presence.

6,257 posted on 12/30/2010 11:24:11 AM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6256 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; OLD REGGIE; metmom
I assure you that sfa shares these sentiments.

Yes, that is correct,my friend.I think have been through this already with Old Reg this year if my memory serves me correct

6,258 posted on 12/30/2010 11:46:57 AM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6256 | View Replies]

ph


6,259 posted on 12/30/2010 12:05:18 PM PST by xone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6258 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
You don't even make it thru the 1st sentence without distorting the truth...Again...

Nonsense. Paul was writing in his capacity as a long standing bishop of the Church. "Our" means the members of the clergy who have authority to write in such fashion.

Epistle=written New Testament scripture...Paul indicates that parts of the written New Testament were being circulated and these traditions are being recorded into scripture...And this is confirmed by the Apostle Peter...

Paul indicates nothing of the kind. If you have something here, prove it. Otherwise, consider this: 2 Peter was written centuries after Peter died in an attempt to squash the apparent rift between Paul and the rest of the Church. Epistle means a letter written. That's all. Paul had no idea that his letters would become Scripture.

And since I and all other Christians were put into the Church BY GOD when we believed, as the scripture states, and membership in your requires the 'good works' of your sacraments, a year of indoctrination and approval by your clerics, it is clear that your religion is not the Church of the Bible...

God put YOU into His Church? Not very picky, is he? And now you are saying that your salvation is of works? Your tune changes, my friend. In the next phrase, you accuse Catholics of the same thing and disapprove of it. We wrote and chose the Bible - we decided which books would be included in the NT, and which version of them; we further decided that the Septuagint was to be the OT Bible. If you adhere to the Canon of Scripture, upon whose authority do you decide your religious beliefs? Upon the Holy Spirit?

Or the image you see in the mirror...

6,260 posted on 12/30/2010 1:21:46 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6214 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom
Just who does the Priest represent in the Eucharist? Does the Priest drink the wine?

The priest is a human being who offers in place of Christ (the Orthodox say as an icon or image of Christ), but he also partakes, because he is no Christ and because he needs Christ just like the rest (and some would say even more than the rest!). Jesus did not need communion. The priest does.

6,261 posted on 12/30/2010 1:22:43 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6253 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom
Does the Priest drink the wine?

Yes. And so do the faithful in Eastern Churches. Only the Latin Church offers its faithful the host but no chalice. Don't ask me why. As a Catholic.

Would it proper for the Priest to drink the wine if the "Church" believed Jesus did not?

Yes. The chalice was offered to the followers of Christ. The Church understand it to be a sacrament. As far as the Church is concerned, Christ is God. He doesn't need a sacrament. God lacks nothing and needs nothing. Humans do.

6,262 posted on 12/30/2010 1:29:41 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6253 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
those of us who are members of The Church, as in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, be it Orthodox, Latin Rite or Oriental Orthodox, with the exception of some very few, uninformed, Latin Rite members of FR,

Sigh; very true...

6,263 posted on 12/30/2010 1:29:41 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6256 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Does the Priest drink the wine?

Yes. And so do the faithful in Eastern Churches. Only the Latin Church offers its faithful the host but no chalice. Don't ask me why. As a Catholic.

That practice, as far as I know, only became popular in certain American dioceses that also, completely coincidentally of course, engaged in post Vatican II nonsense including guitar Masses, pro abortion nuns, liberation theology preachers. It is either entirely corrected or nearly corrected as BXVI imposes orthodoxy upon the Augean stables that house the USCCB.

6,264 posted on 12/30/2010 1:34:31 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6262 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; metmom
Only the Latin Church offers its faithful the host but no chalice.

This is rare and not the norm from my experience,dear kosta. I travel quite a bit and have gone to many,many different Latin Churches and I can say that over 90 percent or more offer the Chalice during daily Mass and I have never once not seen the Chalice offered at Sunday Mass

6,265 posted on 12/30/2010 1:43:33 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6262 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; stfassisi; metmom
"You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you? "

In the context of Christianity and the comments of our Holy and God Bearing Father +Ignatius of Antioch, those of us who are members of The Church, as in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, be it Orthodox, Latin Rite or Oriental Orthodox, with the exception of some very few, uninformed, Latin Rite members of FR, all deny that there is any distinction at all between those two words, capital "C" or not. This, by the way, has been the position of The Church since the first years of the 2nd century as is apparent from +Ignatius' warnings against the teachings of extra ecclesial heretics. I assure you that sfa shares these sentiments.

You have an advantage over me in that you can claim "...all deny that there is any distinction at all between those two words, capital "C" or not." while I cannot disprove it given your "exception" out. Further, you speak Greek while I do not.

Let's make it as simple as possible:

My native language (English) makes a distinction between Catholic (noun) and catholic (adjective.

Am I to understand you make no distinction between capitalization, nouns, and adjectives.

(You write very well in English and I marvel at your apparent ability to switch seamlessly between the inferior (English) and superior (Greek).

I repeat; "You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?"

Pretend for the moment that you live in a country where English is the dominant language.

6,266 posted on 12/30/2010 2:12:56 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6256 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
I think the practice goes back much farther than that, Mark. Something like the 6th century.
6,267 posted on 12/30/2010 2:23:00 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6264 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom
Just who does the Priest represent in the Eucharist? Does the Priest drink the wine?

The priest is a human being who offers in place of Christ (the Orthodox say as an icon or image of Christ), but he also partakes, because he is no Christ and because he needs Christ just like the rest (and some would say even more than the rest!). Jesus did not need communion. The priest does.

Doubletalk!

CCC
1566 "It is in the Eucharistic cult or in the Eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a supreme degree their sacred office; there, acting in the person of Christ and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord, the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father." From this unique sacrifice their whole priestly ministry draws its strength.

The Priest acts "...in the person of Christ". The Priest drinks the wind----Jesus drinks the wine. Simple!

6,268 posted on 12/30/2010 2:25:17 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6261 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; metmom; MarkBsnr
This is rare and not the norm from my experience,dear kosta. I travel quite a bit and have gone to many,many different Latin Churches and I can say that over 90 percent or more offer the Chalice

I will have to take your word for it. My experience has been a little different. I watch Catholic Mass on EWTN, both daily and Sunday as well as papal and other hierarcichal Masses (for informational purposes) and they never offer the Chalice to the faithful.

For all the hoopla over the Novus Ordo Mass, I have actually seen the Cup offered to the faithful in a daily Mass in the Naval Hospital Jacksonville, Florida, but the wine was white!

The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) which has been instituted by Pope St. Gregory I (the Great) certainly never offered the Chalice to the faithful (only the clergy) since its inception at the end of the 6th century, until 1967, when the Novus Odro was implemented as the "ordinary" Mass.

6,269 posted on 12/30/2010 2:31:43 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6265 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom
Doubletalk!

Why are you quoting form the CCC? I was referring to the Eastern Churches which make no such claim, and do not follow the CCC.

Your issues are with the Latin Church. I don't know the Latin Church. I am not Catholic, I was baptized Orthodox as an infant and reverently practiced Orthodox Christianity until a few years ago and a such am qualified to comment on Orthodox practice.

You asked me a question and I answered it from the Eastern Orthodox point of view, which I hold to be the only catholic view.

For your information, the two Churches are not in communion.

6,270 posted on 12/30/2010 2:39:39 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6268 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; stfassisi; metmom; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; annalex
My native language (English) makes a distinction between Catholic (noun) and catholic (adjective."

I know, and that is a particularly Western, post Reformation (and to an extent even post 1053) conceit. Capital C or lower case c, Catholic or catholic, again in a religious context, always meant the same thing, the fullness of the Christian Church. Now today we speak of The Church (as we always have) and "ecclesial groups" but the terms "catholic" and "Catholic", for the overwhelming majority of Christians mean, appropriately, the same thing, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Let me add, meaning no offense to anyone in particular and certainly no one on this thread, that it is unfortunate that on FR over the years, a Roman Catholic poster, or two, has intentionally created the impression that the "catholic" church which +Ignatius referred to is the Roman Catholic Church exclusively. That is either the product of insufficient catechesis coupled with an excess of enthusiasm or an out right lie. I tend to believe the former.

"(You write very well in English and I marvel at your apparent ability to switch seamlessly between the inferior (English) and superior (Greek)."

And all the more marvelous when one remembers that I am merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants! :)

"I repeat; "You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?

Pretend for the moment that you live in a country where English is the dominant language."

OK. In a religious context, there is still no difference. Sorry.

6,271 posted on 12/30/2010 3:54:32 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6266 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; OLD REGGIE; metmom
They aren't saying we are saved by "works of the law" but it's by "good deeds".

Correct, thank you for noticing this important distinction.

Of course, the problem then is aren't the Ten Commandments part of "The Law"? By that thinking, I guess God says go ahead and steal, lie, murder, etc. - since that stuff is under "The Law", and as long as you do good deeds, you will be okay

We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are Jewish law, but rather because Jesus repeated them (most of them) to us, expanded them and explained them (Mt 5-7). Not stealing, etc. is a good idea and violating the Ten Commandments is a sin, but you are not saved by merely obeying them as law.

what the following verse means under that kind of logic: Titus 3:5

"ουκ εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη", -- not by the works of justice -- explains the same principle. You are nto saved by obeying law but by "exceling in good works" (Titus 3:8).

6,272 posted on 12/30/2010 4:22:04 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5542 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
Annalex: “There are many historical facts not supported by scripture”

count-your-change: As you say ‘MOST’ are not but neither do we elevate Josephus or Pliny to the authority of Inspired Scripture

Right. The fact that Mary remained virgin is a historical fact. It is not a fact known from scripture. It is simply a fact; how do you "elevate" it?

if there is disagreement between the secular historians and Scripture [we don't] raise these writers to a position of superiority, do we?

The scripture reflects historical facts also. If there seems to be a disagreement we have to find an explanation one way or another. In this case, there is no contradiction between the virginity of Mary and the scripture, so the issue does not arise. The contradiction is only between the way some modern readers, who often read as if the scripture were written by modern English speakers, interpret the scripture, but not with the scripture itself.

6,273 posted on 12/30/2010 4:28:50 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5587 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; metmom
We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are Jewish law, but rather because Jesus repeated them (most of them) to us, expanded them and explained them (Mt 5-7). Not stealing, etc. is a good idea and violating the Ten Commandments is a sin, but you are not saved by merely obeying them as law.
what the following verse means under that kind of logic: Titus 3:5
"ουκ εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη", -- not by the works of justice -- explains the same principle. You are nto saved by obeying law but by "exceling in good works" (Titus 3:8).

Your interpretation of Scripture is revealingly false and anyone who can read can see that. For the record, here is the passage:

Titus 3:3-8
At one time we too were foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. We lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. This is a trustworthy saying. And I want you to stress these things, so that those who have trusted in God may be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good. These things are excellent and profitable for everyone.

So, no, the verses certainly do not say that we are saved by "excelling in good works". Rather, those who ARE saved, justified by grace, should be careful to devote themselves to doing what is good because these teachings are true and are profitable for everyone who are members of the body of Christ.

As I have said before, go right ahead and rely upon your good works to save you - they won't, but you have been warned - and I will rest upon the grace of God. Because, you see, saying you accept the gift of grace but insisting that your works are what ensures your salvation is not really accepting the gift of grace. You are really casting aside grace.

6,274 posted on 12/30/2010 5:35:21 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6272 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I think the practice goes back much farther than that, Mark. Something like the 6th century.

Interesting. Something that I have not experienced for at least 8 years in several of the more, shall we say, liberal, parishes. I have no knowledge of anything further. Do you have a reference?

6,275 posted on 12/30/2010 7:03:06 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6267 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
I will have to take your word for it. My experience has been a little different. I watch Catholic Mass on EWTN, both daily and Sunday as well as papal and other hierarcichal Masses (for informational purposes) and they never offer the Chalice to the faithful.

Interesting. I have not noticed.

For all the hoopla over the Novus Ordo Mass, I have actually seen the Cup offered to the faithful in a daily Mass in the Naval Hospital Jacksonville, Florida, but the wine was white!

Huh? What kind of diocese is this?

The Traditional Latin Mass (TLM) which has been instituted by Pope St. Gregory I (the Great) certainly never offered the Chalice to the faithful (only the clergy) since its inception at the end of the 6th century, until 1967, when the Novus Odro was implemented as the "ordinary" Mass.

This is certainly beyond my experience. Do you have a link to its history?

6,276 posted on 12/30/2010 7:19:43 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6269 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Do you have a link to its history?

I checked the Catholic Encyclopedia ("Communion under both kinds") which says that the 12th century is when bread-only reception was instituted in the West, but variant practices existed prior to that in all of Christendom.

6,277 posted on 12/30/2010 8:16:43 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6276 | View Replies]

To: annalex

The Greek word “eos” is used as a conjunction in Matthew 1:25, it connects two phrases, Mary was a virgin and when that ended just as “eos” is used as a conjunction in verse 17.

But it’s not surprising that a reliance upon the distorted views of marital relations that some the so-called “church fathers” held would produce a narrative of an ever virginal Mary no matter what the Scriptures said otherwise.

Who needs the Scriptures when you have that work of fiction and fraud, The Infancy Gospel of James? That’s your “historical fact” source.


6,278 posted on 12/31/2010 1:42:48 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6273 | View Replies]

To: annalex; count-your-change
(count-your-change - courteous ping only)

Alex, the above mentioned individual writes "But it’s not surprising that a reliance upon the distorted views of marital relations that some the so-called “church fathers” held..."

It never ceases to amaze me that 21st century Protestants claim to know the scriptures better, and have superior understanding of Middle Eastern marital relations than the 2nd and 3rd century Middle Eastern Christian apologists.

The Church bases its understanding of what those people wrote in their own cultural milieu and language they actually spoke, which is the same language and cultural milieu that produced the scriptures.

6,279 posted on 12/31/2010 8:58:28 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6278 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom
Doubletalk!

Why are you quoting form the CCC? I was referring to the Eastern Churches which make no such claim, and do not follow the CCC.

Your issues are with the Latin Church. I don't know the Latin Church. I am not Catholic, I was baptized Orthodox as an infant and reverently practiced Orthodox Christianity until a few years ago and a such am qualified to comment on Orthodox practice.

You asked me a question and I answered it from the Eastern Orthodox point of view, which I hold to be the only catholic view.

For your information, the two Churches are not in communion.

Forgive me if I sometimes get confused between "Catholic" and "Catholic".

I am aware you frequently speak from the perspective of the Orthodox but you also slip into "Catholic speak".

Perhaps a disclaimer would help poor old fools such as me understand where you are coming from at a particular time.

FWIW I believe the Orthodox Churches have remained much more faithful to the practices of the relatively old Christian practices than that of the Latin variety. That said, I also believe they would be unrecognizeable to the "early" Christian Church.

6,280 posted on 12/31/2010 9:04:36 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6270 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; stfassisi; metmom; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; annalex
My native language (English) makes a distinction between Catholic (noun) and catholic (adjective."

I know, and that is a particularly Western, post Reformation (and to an extent even post 1053) conceit. Capital C or lower case c, Catholic or catholic, again in a religious context, always meant the same thing, the fullness of the Christian Church. Now today we speak of The Church (as we always have) and "ecclesial groups" but the terms "catholic" and "Catholic", for the overwhelming majority of Christians mean, appropriately, the same thing, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Head count is meaningless. (Head count elected Obama!)

"Universal Church"

Let me add, meaning no offense to anyone in particular and certainly no one on this thread, that it is unfortunate that on FR over the years, a Roman Catholic poster, or two, has intentionally created the impression that the "catholic" church which +Ignatius referred to is the Roman Catholic Church exclusively. That is either the product of insufficient catechesis coupled with an excess of enthusiasm or an out right lie. I tend to believe the former.

"(You write very well in English and I marvel at your apparent ability to switch seamlessly between the inferior (English) and superior (Greek)."

And all the more marvelous when one remembers that I am merely the simple grandson of simple Greek peasants! :)

"I repeat; "You do know there is a vast difference in the meaning of "catholic" and "Catholic" don't you?

Pretend for the moment that you live in a country where English is the dominant language."

OK. In a religious context, there is still no difference. Sorry.

I don't agree but that's neither here or there. I'll not argue further on this subject.

Nicene Creed

I'd be interested in your take.

6,281 posted on 12/31/2010 9:24:22 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6271 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; stfassisi; metmom; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; annalex
"Nicene Creed

I'd be interested in your take."

Such rich theology! What would you like to know? We call it the Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως, the Symbolon tees Pisteos which sort of means the password or watchword of belief

6,282 posted on 12/31/2010 10:12:49 AM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6281 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; stfassisi; metmom; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; annalex
"Nicene Creed

I'd be interested in your take."

Such rich theology! What would you like to know? We call it the Σύμβολον τῆς Πίστεως, the Symbolon tees Pisteos which sort of means the password or watchword of belief

It's not what I'd like to know (I'll not become a Greek Scholar this time around.) :-)

I am much more in agreement with the English language translation of the "Greek" Nicene Creed than I am with the Roman Catholic/Protestant version.

6,283 posted on 12/31/2010 12:58:26 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6282 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; stfassisi; metmom; D-fendr; MarkBsnr; annalex
"I'll not become a Greek Scholar this time around.)"

Too bad. The Greek of the Creed is spectacular and every word was very carefully chosen. Did you know, for instance, that the expression "one iota's difference" comes from the First Ecumenical Council when it was noted that the difference between orthodox Christianity and Arianism was "one iota"? "I am much more in agreement with the English language translation of the "Greek" Nicene Creed than I am with the Roman Catholic/Protestant version."

You mean the Creed the Council Fathers came up with at Nicea and Constantinople instead of the Spanish one that great Medieval theologian Charlemagne forced Rome to accept? What do you see as the differences and why do you agree with one and not the other?

6,284 posted on 12/31/2010 1:19:00 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6283 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; metmom
Forgive me if I sometimes get confused between "Catholic" and "Catholic".

I can understand that, although if an Eastern perspective is given (hints being the use of the words such as "Eastern Orthodox" or "Orthodox" or just "Eastern") it is not Latin or Roman Catholic.  I usually use catholic (lower case "c") to refer to something common to the early Church, and an upper case "C" for the modern Latin or Roman version of it.

I am aware you frequently speak from the perspective of the Orthodox but you also slip into "Catholic speak

If I am familiar with something I will post it as such, indicating whose perspective it is. At least that is my intention.

Perhaps a disclaimer would help poor old fools such as me understand where you are coming from at a particular time.

I believe I stated in my reply that it was from an Orthodox point of view. That in itself is sui generis a disclaimer .

FWIW I believe the Orthodox Churches have remained much more faithful to the practices of the relatively old Christian practices than that of the Latin variety. That said, I also believe they would be unrecognizeable to the "early" Christian Church

Christianity, or perhaps better said Christ following, was a very heterodox community, meaning there were numerous variants in belief as well as worship. The "orthodox" faction won and became the established, official Christianity, the way the Pharisaical faction of Judaism survived and became the only form of Judaism (the Sadducees disappeared in the 2nd century, the Essenes probably earlier, and the Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews probably became Christianized early on).

That orthodox community called itself the Catholic Church. The early Catholic Church (late 1st and most of the 2nd century) was Greek not Latin. The worship (eucharistia or thanksgiving) was conducted in Greek even in Rome as late as the third cnetury (at least in part), as described by St. Justin Martyr (c. AD 150).

The oldest liturgy is considered the Liturgy of St. James, allegedly a 1st century organized worship, which mentions readings only from the Old Testament, supposedly because the New Testament hadn't been written yet. It's still in use in some Eastern churches (dedicated to St. James), but everyone agrees that it has been "revised" somewhat and is not the original version.

How much would the earliest Christians recognize the worship of the Eastern churches is debatable. The liturgical worship is not alien to Judaism, including incense, kissing of holy objects, bowing, lighting candles, etc. all of which are part of the catholic worship.

Certainly the idea of liturgical worship did not come from the pagan religions, but from the Jewish roots, and is heavily influenced by the Psalms.

In the Epistle to Smyrneans, one of the seven letters of St. Ignatius considered authentic (the pre-5th century collection), he speaks of the real presence, and all other aspects of the worship common to both Orthodox and Latin Churches. So, at least there is some indication that by 110 AD, if not earlier (i.e. the Judaic elements, as well as the Liturgy of St. James, Didache, etc.) the modern Orthodox/Latin worship contains elements present in the worship of early Christians who would probably not find modern worship utterly unrecognizable.

The development of the Christian liturgy did not come out of nowhere. The Church Fathers were aprt of the same cultural and linguistic makeup that wrote the New Testament and it is precisely form them that we have the evolution of liturgical traditions in the early catholic Church, which are still observed by the East.

6,285 posted on 12/31/2010 2:42:52 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6280 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

aprt=part


6,286 posted on 12/31/2010 2:43:30 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6285 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; metmom

Very good, Kosta mou. Off to the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.


6,287 posted on 12/31/2010 2:55:58 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6285 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

6,288 posted on 12/31/2010 3:26:36 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6266 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Hmmm....

If the priest is there *offering* the *sacrifice* of Christ, doesn’t that mean he identifies more with the Roman centurions who who nailed Jesus to the cross than with....

whoever????


6,289 posted on 12/31/2010 3:29:13 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6268 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; OLD REGGIE; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; caww; ...
We don't obey the Ten Commandments because they are Jewish law, but rather because Jesus repeated them (most of them) to us, expanded them and explained them (Mt 5-7). Not stealing, etc. is a good idea and violating the Ten Commandments is a sin, but you are not saved by merely obeying them as law.

Bangs head on desk......

We do. But we don't, until we do.....

Just what, then, IS the criteria for what is *good* if it's not the Law?

You think that the Catholic church can just go and make up any old thing it wants, declare it a *good work*, adequate for salvation, outside of what God has stipulated is good and evil?

Good grief, not only has the Catholic church decided that it doesn't need the Bible because it has *tradition* but it appears that it's decided that it doesn't even need God, because it can determine the moral value of works without Him.

6,290 posted on 12/31/2010 3:36:10 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6272 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; metmom; Kolokotronis

Kosta-””The liturgical worship is not alien to Judaism, including incense, kissing of holy objects, bowing, lighting candles, etc. all of which are part of the catholic worship.
Certainly the idea of liturgical worship did not come from the pagan religions, but from the Jewish roots, and is heavily influenced by the Psalms.””

Good post dear Kosta,here is one of my favorite website’s that I use for reference material from Marquette University.

Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism
http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

Lot’s of good stuff that lead me away from being protestant years ago.


6,291 posted on 12/31/2010 3:37:41 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6285 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
Right. The fact that Mary remained virgin is a historical fact. It is not a fact known from scripture. It is simply a fact; how do you "elevate" it?

It's an opinion, nothing more and nothing less because there is NO legitimate, reliable, testable, repeatable, NO ANYTHING way to verify it.

It doesn't even have the support of Scripture by your own admission. There is NO basis for being able to declare it as fact. None. It's just wishful thinking.

Catholics would be better off if they'd just admit that they teach that Mary was always a virgin because they like the doctrine. It would at least be more honest of them.

But to admit that there is no substantial way to verify something and still claim that is a fact is ludicrous.

6,292 posted on 12/31/2010 3:41:19 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6273 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; OLD REGGIE; metmom
Off to the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great

Two and a half to three hours of standing...amazingly, one doesn't feel it, even elderly folks stand. In the Tokyo Orthodox Cathedral (popularly known as Nikorai Do, Nikola's House), I watched really old people stand (yes, there are Orthodox Japanese!) through the whole liturgy even though there are always chairs for the old and the indigent.

6,293 posted on 12/31/2010 4:49:48 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6287 | View Replies]

To: metmom; OLD REGGIE; Kolokotronis; stfassisi; MarkBsnr
If the priest is there *offering* the *sacrifice* of Christ, doesn’t that mean he identifies more with the Roman centurions who who nailed Jesus to the cross than with....whoever????

You know, metmom, being obtuse is an option not an obligation. For someone who claims to have been a Catholic your comments sometimes suggest otherwise.

The liturgy, whether you call it the Mass (Catholic) or the Divine Liturgy (Orthodox) is the reenactment of the Mystery (aka the Last) Supper, as per Jesus' own words. Someone has to make the offering., someone other than the congregation, because Jesus was not "one of the guys" but set apart, commissioned.

The Church sets apart (ordains) people who "hear the call" as the ones who make the bloodless offering instead of Jesus personally, in place of Christ, as an icon of Christ.

That priest, however, is still human, sinful and in need of the Savior and Christ's offer applies to him too..."Eat, all of you, this is my Body..." The priest offers and partakes. What's so offensive, difficult to comprehend or funny about it?

Why do Protestants wave their hands in the air like those Khalimar worshipers in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"? Are they making sure God "sees" them? Trying to get his attention?

This is just an illustration how easy it is to ridicule something. I hope the Protestants have a better explanation.

6,294 posted on 12/31/2010 5:09:06 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6289 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; OLD REGGIE; metmom; Kolokotronis
Jewish Roots of Eastern Christian Mysticism http://www.marquette.edu/maqom/

Great link, sfa. Thanks a lot.

6,295 posted on 12/31/2010 5:11:27 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6291 | View Replies]

To: metmom; annalex
Mary remained virgin is a historical fact. It is not a fact known from scripture

Annalex is correct it's not in scripture... rather yet another teaching of Rome that was enlarged to include this once Mary was accepted as the new Goddess...replacing the pagan Goddess who didn't make the cut.

6,296 posted on 12/31/2010 5:17:32 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6292 | View Replies]

To: caww; metmom

oops...should have made that quote as his.


6,297 posted on 12/31/2010 5:18:36 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6296 | View Replies]

To: caww; metmom; Quix
Annalex: we don't teach that [specifics of Mary's later life] from the Bible but rather from the Holy Tradition whence the entire knowledge of Mary and her life comes

caww: the ENTIRE knowledge of Mary and her life comes from catholic tradition...and not from the Bible

The entire knowledge of anything to do with Jesus Christ comes from the Hoyl Tradition. Parts of it also are in the scripture otehr parts aren't. There is enough in the Holy Scripture to reasonably conclude that she was sinless all her life, but it not said directly, so I do not attempt.

So then 'anyone' can write their own rendition of the story about Mary and her life, (for that matter any Biblical person), and pass their ideas and imaginations of how they see her on thru the ranks of 'any religion' and call it truth

No, no one can, unless he lived at the same time Mary was on this earth and witnessed her life. You are referring to pious literature. The fact that Mary lived her entire life virgin is not a pious literary product, it is a historical fact.

Even New Agers do this

The difference is historicity of the miracles of Incarnation and Resurrection, and associated events, claimed by Christianity. There are many false religions that have traditions and many false religions that have scriptures. Christianity is alone that claims that her tradition is a historical fact, and therefore the scripture is a historical document, and does so credibly.

6,298 posted on 12/31/2010 5:26:47 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5649 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; metmom
..... people who "hear the call" as the ones ....'who make the bloodless offering.... instead of Jesus personally', 'in place of Christ', as an icon of Christ.

Oh WOW....this is just way over the line of Christianity!can you not see what your own words are saying? In stating this you are seriously implying the catholic church ordains saviors other than Christ...."Instead of Jesus". ..or at the very least become their own savior.

6,299 posted on 12/31/2010 5:29:05 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6294 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change
Annalex, in response to Gal 1:3-14 being cited: In several places St. Paul explains that works of the Law, Jewish Law or any other are not necessary for salvation, and we Catholics agree with him. In that passage, as well, he repeats that. Note verse 10. As to Abraham's faith, St. Paul also lists the works that Abraham did to glorify God. His circumcision is not one of them. So does St James. (Hebrews 11:8-19, James 2:21-24). So, in the example of Abraham whose faith is indeed an inspiration for us, we conclude with St. James, -- Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Netmom: [posts Galationas 1:1-23 without any comment]

Which part on Galatians 1:1-23 I did not cover in myy post regarding Galatians 1:3-14? Or otherwise is there any reason for your posting it? The entire letter to Galatians, as well as every other book of the New Testament is Catholic teaching.

6,300 posted on 12/31/2010 5:32:39 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5656 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,201-6,2506,251-6,3006,301-6,350 ... 7,351-7,356 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson