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
Wow...who’d a thunk a typo that I let stand as a little humorous nudge would have stung so much that so many days later it gets brought up again. Did I not apologize for hurting your tender feelings once already? Are these “jokes” now meant for some payback? How old are you?
“But, God forbid if even one turns up their hand(s) towards Heaven!”
Now that’s just silly.
And it’s assuming to pass judgment on a whole crowd of people by how they hold their hands in church.
I actually worship daily in my Catholic Church and I know that—unless you forgot to put a sarc/ tag on this comment—we are NOT looking askance at how our neighbors in the pew about how they are holding their hands during worship.
“...every communicant is pure as the driven snow”.
Really? You’re “positive” that is the case “everytime (sic) during the RC Mass”?
BTW,
IF you were a flag officer . . . you likely came across UFO information.
Perhaps even as an O6.
Anything you can share about such phenomena?
INDEED.
No, you are just telling me stories.
It's not rocket science knowing the blind can't see.
Last time I checked blind faith is a virtue (i.e. blessed are those who believe but did not see...)
What are you concerned about anyone else for?
It has to do with some trying to sell me a story and then sending me to hell if I don't. Other than that I care about other people. I would expect a Christian to understand that. Then, again, maybe not.
Do you enjoy going around checking on who knows The Truth when you don't even know God.
Is that a "crime"? Do you believe everything people say? What does that have to do with "knowing" God?
I'd put that in the asinine category.
You would.
That was SCRIPTURE!
To you. And if it is, it will not be you passing the judgment whom the Lord knows and whom he doesn't. It would be his judgment to make, not yours.
[For two, even when I was a practicing Christian...] Two years a practicing Christian and you didn't know that Scripture.
Did I say for two years? I am afraid your reading comprehension is flawed.
Jesus told us what He will say to those who don't know Him
He didn't say they didn't know him. It's what they didn't do. Besides, he dind' say to which one of us he would say that. You are assuming it would be me but not you. Why? because you say "Lord, Lord?"
You are right. Whether there is no "salvation" outside the Church or Christ, it doesn't matter. Stated as a matter of fact it's just the arrogance of Christianity...not that Christianity stands alone in arrogance.
It can be a comforting belief to some, boatbums—but only when expressed as a sincere personal hope rather than a condemnation of others.
It wasn't a "typo," by your own admission. It was a deliberate play on words with an uncharitable connotation for no other reason except that I don't share your beliefs. It didn't sting, as I said, it merely unmasked a different boatbums I knew on FR until then.
Did I not apologize for hurting your tender feelings once already?
I never asked for apology, and I told you so. To forgive is one thing; to forget is another. I am under no obligation to forget.
Are these “jokes” now meant for some payback?
I don't plan any personal jokes on you, boatbums, so what "payback" are you talking about?
How old are you?
There you go, again...
Do you? Maybe next time you ought to try saying something like "Sorry for the interruption, now please continue your discussion"? I bet you won't be "misunderstood."
This is not about men reaching up to God; it's about mob emotion and waving about like kelp in the current.
The above, while fictional, does not begin to meet the standard set by Lewis Carroll.
You would have no organized Church and no Papacy prior to Constantine. I agree, but you have strayed from the "official" account.
The Tridentine Mass was the Novus Ordo of 1570.
Are your eyes brown?
Of course Catholic "revenence" (sic) may be a Catholicspeak word which means "wild and crazy guys".
Mark is right. Why should the Vatican open it's vaults even in the situation involving Vatican Bank scandals?
Lets ask for something which the Vatican should have no moral or legal opposition to. For instance, the Vatican Archives! After all, the Vatican has nothing to hide.
Well, kinda sorta.
Umm, reverence, of course. I'm not recognizing the two in this photoshopped pic.
Well, the vault in question is not where the Vatican Bank is located.
Lets ask for something which the Vatican should have no moral or legal opposition to. For instance, the Vatican Archives! After all, the Vatican has nothing to hide.
I was under the impression that they were being slowly opened. Is it the speed to which you object?
I must say that I am very impressed with the state of your teeth - a little yellow around the canines, but appearing to be in very good shape.
Sure, in order to keep Catholics from leaving the Church in huge numbers, the RCC finally gave in to the the mostly Filipino and Latino demands in 2003 to allow this. These people make up 120 million (10%) of Romes' 1.2 billion members.
In America these offshoots come mostly from Notre Dame and Duquesne ultra liberal centers.
None of this changes the fact that this is unrecognizable to the Church in the East or the West, at least from the 3rd century onward, or that it is pagan-like worship.
LOL! OR you can do better than that. The TLM was the Roman Mass since the end of the 6th century, instituted by Pope St. Gregory I (aka known as the Great). At Trent it was made mandatory (or "ordinary") for all except for some very ancient liturgies, such as the Mozarabic (in Spain), etc.
Prior to TLM, the Latin Church used Alexandrian and Antiochan (Eastern) liturgies. And up to the 3rd century its liturgy was in Greek.
This is a very important thing for our Protestant friends to grasp. The Church is a hierarchy of hierarchies, and each local Episcopacy models the Church Catholic. Further, each local parish models, with some necessary alterations, the Episcopacy, and each house forms the Church Domestic where the man of the house is also the priest of the house.
Each time the question is raised, "why wouldn't the Pope just order X", that is the answer. The bishops are sovereign princes of their dioceses. We are held together by faith kept in common, not by command and control structures.
St. Peter spoke of "living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices" for a reason.
The reference to specifically drinking is apparently due to the circumstance that Jesus asked for a physical drink. From that, a simile is made to the saving water of baptism. The fact remains that there is no instruction to the apostles to drink nor to give out a drink, but there is the instruction to give out Christ’s body and blood under the appearances of bread and wine, and to baptize. Baptism, like the Eucharist, gives everlasting life.
Not drinking water but water baptism. Both sacraments, Baptism and the Eucharist, give everlasting life to these who validly partake of them. There is no contradiction as each means of salvation has its appointed place in the life of a Christian.
May it's "strategy"? :)
54% is hardly an offshoot
Where do you find 54%?
sticky keyboard (too much coffee in it):
May = Maybe
Have you ever read the Greek constitution? I doubt it. Nothing in it establishes Eastern Orthodoxy as the "state" religion. Church and state are separate. It recognizes is as the prevalent religion (93% of the population).
The Greeks are among the most religious people in Europe. The number of people who believe in God is equal or higher than in the United States of America. Only Malta and Poland come close.
Compare that to, say, Germany, where 30% are declared atheists, and church attendance is a meagerly 5-6%.
Orthodoxy is deeply intertwined with Greek culture, so that much of folklore also has Orthodoxy in it. The two are inseparable, as Judaism is inseparable from Israel.
As to being arrested for proselytizing, that may very well be true. Protestant Christians have no business in Christian Greece. Your missionaries should go where Christ is unknown.
daniel1212 : i have already answered it this vain argument, only to see it repeated
You will probably see it repeated many times even after I read and responded to what you wrote. Remember, I do not read ahead and respond when I get around to a particular post, usually about one week after it is posted, because there is one of me and many of you posting, and I don't skip serious posts. Why you will still see this argument repeated? Because your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.
It would indeed be wrong, -- completely un-Christian -- for me to thump the Catechism on the imaginary podium and shout, Obey the Living Magisterium! If I cite the Magisterium at all -- at times I do, typically, the Catechism, -- that is to explain what the Catholic Church really teaches. I do not expect anyone to obey the Church just because you have resolved to obey the Bible.
I do, however, have every right to point out how the Protestant doctrines stand in stark contrast to the Bible at least on the subject of Faith Alone and Bible Alone, and the rejection of the properly offered Sacraments of the Church. This is simply asking for consistency. If you did not profess obedience to the Bible I would not be making biblical points at all, just like I would not argue scripture with a Buddhist.
The hostile attitude to the historical wintess of the Church is of course not a logical contradiction to the belief in the same witness when it happens to be recorded in canonical scripture. It is simply something worth asking: what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture?
To your points.
1. Historical lineage does not make one an authentic Jew, spiritually speaking, as certain Jews presumed it did, (Mt. 3:9; Jn. 8:39,44; and their office required it), or a true Christian or church. Rather it is manifest Scriptural faith
True. Neither does historical lineage alone ensure validity of Apostolic succession. Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.
unlike the church at Rome, the law was explicitly stated to have been committed to the Jews, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) and yet they were manifestly not assuredly infallible in faith and morals
This goes to the disctintion between the non-salvific nature of the works of Jewish law, the part on which, hopefully we all agree, and the absolute nature of the teaching of Jesus Christ. The Jewish law was given to the Jews and not binding on the Gentiles; as the Church discovered, once a Jew becoems Christian the Law of Moses was no longer binding on him either. The Jewish lawmaking authority was temporal, the authority of the Church eternal (Mt 16:18-19). So no parallel can be drawn between the rule of the Rabbis and the Church.
3. Scripture being the supreme transcendent assuredly infallible objective authority [similar point is made in 4 and the same answer applies]
It is. The Magisterium that rules against the scripture, were it to ever happen, would not be guided by the Holy Ghost and will ispo facto cease to be the Magisterium of the Church.
5. The authenticity of Rome's AIM is based upon her own declaration that she is assuredly infallible
Yes. There are levels of speech uttered by the Magisterium, like there are levels of any speech. The Magisterium should be the judge of when the Magisterium intends to make an infallible statement and when it is ordinary teaching. This is just logical that the speaker is the judge of the intent of his speech.
6
This agins rests ont he idea that there is a direct analogy between the Jewish rabbinate and the Church. That premise is false.
the Divinely inspired writings were essentially progressively recognized as such due to their qualities and effects
Indeed, and that was the collective work of the Church.
7. ...immoral, impenitent Popes
we don't know about "impenitent", neither you or I were their confessors. St. Peter himself was not exactly infallible in his ordinary life. The issue is not that we had bad popes, -- we certainly did, -- but the teaching the Magisterium produced, perhaps, despite these very popes. Let us not forget that the infallible magisterial teaching is not a day-to-day governance of the Church. Bad popes generally left no lasting legacy.
But it was a decision of the Church (in part later neglected by Luther) to incorporate certain books into the Christian Bible. Further, the Church interpreted the Old Testament in the light of Christ. A Christian now reads the Old Testament with the eye of the Church, -- just talk to anyone Jewish and see how far you get agreeing on anything.
Claiming that the writers of Scripture were by default Catholics is only a tactic used to justify the Catholic church's power grab
That is not the claim though. Giordano Bruno was Catholic; Luther was Catholic for most of their lives. Just being a "default Catholic" does not guarantee anything. The Church as a whole -- not merely the four Evangelists and other authors, -- did the arduous work of selecting these particular writings from many other writings. It was done in council based on the criteria of canonicity established by the Church. Further, the teaching of the Church then and now is in complete harmony with the New Testament, whereas the teachings of every sect from the Arians to the Protestants contradicts the scripture in the major points of their doctrines. That is because the New Testament came from the bosom of the Church; it reflects her very essence.
True, but that fact is no license to take anything Jesus said and because for some reason you don't like it say, "gotta be metaphor". The "drinking" part in John 4 is a take off from the fact that He was given water to drink; but the life giving water is of course Baptism because He did give us that, and life-giving it is. Gate and vine metaphors are self-evidently metaphors because they come in the course of the same passage. There is no commandment to drink water and there is no commandment to do anything about gates and vines. As to body and blood, the metaphorical interpretation flies int he face of the text itself, and indeed thare its a commandment to "do this" and a discourse that it is "food indeed".
No one says that all of the gospel is literal, but all of the gospel is inerrant as written. When a metaphore is offered, the inspired author made sure no sect in 16c could come alone and credibly pretend that they obey the scripture.
Not "any", but the so called "dynamic" translations certainly are. Douay is word-for-word Vulgate and Vulgate is the result of Jerome's work before some codices went missing, and in the living environment of 4c Palestine. There are problems with that as well, but on balance, there is no better window to the Greek original in English today than Douay. unless you are prepared to struggle with Young's Literal, or, best of all, learn Greek.
That is if you want to do, in the spirit of Protestantism, all the work for yourself from scratch. If, on the other hand, you are willing to accept a historical authority, listen to the Catholic (and/or Orthodox) Church and you will know exactly not only what the scripture says but also what it means. Then the blandest, most cursory and aerodynamic stuff like NAB would still become useful, because you read it with the eye of the Church.
Yes, that is monotheism, and some vaguely Arian provenance.
True, but this is a venue that evangelizes as it debates. I think it is a good idea to offer translation at least when asked.
The translations are required by the RM and have been stated so several times, and just as often, ignored.
Sure it is. Those "patient in good works" get "eternal life"; -- that's salvation. Those who "work evil" -- otherwise. Compare Matthew 25:31-46.
[cites Eph 2:8-10] we cannot do good works unless we are already saved.
It says "God hath before ordained that we should walk in [the good works]", so I don't think so. What kind of faith would that be, disobeying what God had "ordained" (it really says "prepared", by the way)?
Why is it them that today there is no sign of any "apostasy" in the Holy Catholic Church?
If you bring it up again, you haven't forgiven either.
"Filthy rags" is from a different context, but that is correct what you intend to say: good works are not done for any other reason than love of God and one's neighbor.
Only the works of one that is saved can be good
Based on what scripture?
one thing is wanting to thee: sell all whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me (Luke 18:22)
Observe: the young man was not saved, but that what he did is good. It just was not enough. The same episode promises salvation to anyone who "hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake". So these things are good even before the doers of these things are saved.
Like I said, it's juvenile and I'll ignore any further traps to draw me into what is always basically a spitting contest (or worse) with some people. No point to it.
The passage does nto describe the Law of Any Works; it only describes the Works of the Law. That is contrasted to faith, but that includes good works. This is why St,. Paul diod not say "justified by faith alone apart from any works" but rather "justified by faith apart from the works of the law", which is the Catholic teaching.
The idea that this passage gives credence to His Blood is present in the Eucharist is nowhere to be found here
"sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith". You do not recieve the Blood by faith, -- you don't believe it is blood.
Boatbums: The point was that you claim "Protestants" must put their spin on verses of scripture, and I showed you that you do exactly that
Where did I spin John 3:16? You don't think you have to do what Jesus says?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Yes, the young man was not saved, because he lacked faith in Jesus Christ as Savior. He thought he was perfect and could go to heaven because he was. When Jesus pointed out his weakness - his wealth - he showed him that his perceived perfection was never going to be enough. Note also that Jesus didn't say to him that if he gave everything to the poor and followed him, he would be saved, but that "his reward would be great in heaven". There is a difference. The base of our faith is that Jesus Christ is the one and only Savior and we should not allow anything in our lives - family, love, money, fame - to keep us from following him.
So who are the sheep in Matthew 25:31-46? They seem to do what Matthew 5-7 teaches and end up saved.
Also, you are telling us that Jesus said the Sermon on the Mount in order to tease us, like a cruel person would urge a lame to run Marathon. Is there any indication in the text of the Sermon itself that it is given as an example of the impossible?
once someone sinned one time, it wouldn’t matter if they were perfect for the entire rest of their lives. It’s too late
True. This is why Christ also gave the Church the "ministry of reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:18, cf. John 20:22-23)
[quotes Gal 2 and 3]
I explained it to you many times. The Church agrees with St. Paul that works of the law do not save anyone.
The Holy Eucharist is not a repetition or performance of anything.
It is usually a good idea to know a thing or two about the subject upon which you wish to opine.
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.