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
Where did you spin it? How about "John 3:16 simply says that you have to believe Christ in order to be saved by Christ. So you have, among other things, [to] do what He says and that includes the good works that He teaches". That verse doesn't say "believe Christ", it says "That whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." You put the spin on in and merely proved that you were doing what you claim Protestants do. Do you see my point now?
Which scripture says that? Matthew 26:26-28 surely doesn't. "This is my body"; "This is my blood".
LOL. Re-read Col. 4:11ff.
They are when the Eucharist is consecrated, body and blood separate, to "show the death of Jesus" (1 Cor.11:26). When the Eucharist is offered, a fragment of consecrated Bred is dropped into the consecrated Wine, uniting the two in the Resurrection. When we consume either one, it is whole resurrected Christ again, and one does partake of both regardless of the manner of receiving. Good question, thanks.
“the Church” in annalexology is the Catholic Church. But the comparison of the actions of the Catholic Church to “the Church” reveal no similarity. for example the williness to approve torture. Christian teaching or Catholic teaching?
The New Testament canon needed no Catholic council to establish it.
It is actually OR, not AND in verse 27, and eating EITHER one unworthily results in a state of being "guilty of the body AND of the blood of the Lord". No matter what species you take unworthily, the guilt is of both body and the blood.
At the same time, both the bread AND the chalice "show the death of the Lord" so the use of the prepositions is consistent with the Catholic practice.
That is a well-known Protestant forgery designed to critique communion in one species.
Well, from the "horse's mouth":
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper "on the night when he was betrayed," [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory."
Off the top of my head, the meaning of universal Church was clarified by the Letter to the Smyrneans by St. Igantius of Antioch when he linked it to belief in the Eucharist and obedience to the bishop, thus rendering false the modern notion in some sects that they are "catholic".
In another example, the perverse Calvinist idea that man has no free will was dealt away with in Irenaeus: St. Irenaeus on Free Will (Adversus Haereses IV,37)
Every day I post the original Gospel and the Latin Gospel for the day, for example, Catholic Caucus: Daily Mass Readings, 01-03-11, Opt. Mem. Most Holy Name of Jesus. Having posted the texts I post the relevant patristic quotes in the next post, and then some art. You can follow these around and see for yourself how the Fathers of the Church clarify the scripture. The link to an excellent collection of patristic quotes organized by the Gospel verse is in my signature, if you want to do it at your own pace.
It’s never too much trouble to recognize hypocrisy.
And the Catholics make it so easy.
Yes it does. Jesus broke the loaf and handed IT to the disciples.
Vs. 29 Jesus calls the contents of the cup, “This product of the vine”, i.e., wine.
If you can post pages of Greek text then surely you can use a lexicon.
1370 To the offering of Christ are united not only the members still here on earth, but also those already in the glory of heaven. In communion with and commemorating the Blessed Virgin Mary and all the saints, the Church offers the Eucharistic sacrifice. In the Eucharist the Church is as it were at the foot of the cross with Mary, united with the offering and intercession of Christ.
That's so ridiculous. Humans didn't offer Christ as a sacrifice to God.
The only human contribution and participation to the death of Christ is putting Him on the cross and essentially pounding the nails in His hands.
Jesus was not a sacrifice offered by men to God for their sins because the lambs weren't good enough. It wasn't man's idea nor man's doing.
It is a scriptural reality: Christ calls them gaining life by losing it (Matthew 10:39, John 12:24-25). They are capable of rejoicing (Psalm 149:5-9, Rev 18:20). They "shall judge this world" (1 Cor 6:2, Jude 1:14). We "ask for the saints according to God" (Romans 8:27); They "lay aside every weight and sin which surrounds us" (Heb. 12:1); their prayers reach God (Rev. 5:8, 8:3f).
No, that doesn't follow. We read the Bible literally when it is written in literal sense; when it is written allegorically, we shoudl take it allegorically. We shoudl always take it as written, but it does not mean ignotring allegory when allegory is intended.
the sections that say that he who eats will never die, MUST mean that physical death does not occur.
Let us examine what it actually says (You verse numbering may be one off). "If any man eat of it, he may not die" indeed contrasts the death that the Jews who were given the manna experienced to the absence of death of a Christian (vv 49-50). Two points on that, before we move on. When these words were spoken the Jews who exscaped from Egypt were dead in every sense. They both experienced death and they remained in Sheol, the abode of the dead. So that a Christian shall "not die" is a reference to the fact that a Christian who experiences death nevertheless lives with God from the moment he dies, and will be raised up in the body at the last day. See John 12:24-25, James 5:15 and verses 40, 44, 55 of this chapter).
The other references in John 6 are not to "not dying" but having "everlasting life", "living for ever", being "raised up on the last day", "living with Christ". They are clearly references to the life following death and not absence of physical death. That is, of course, consistent with the other referecnes to eternal life and something that goes past death without denying that physical death occurs (John 12:24-25, James 5:15, again).
In Hell, often (Mt. 25:41). John 6, by the way, does not say that those who do not receive the Eucharist all go to hell. Indeed, since we are judged by our works it is possible to reach sainthood by your works. There are even canonized saints who were not yet baptized and therefore not yet receving the Eucharist when they were martyred. The Eucharist is said to give us eternal life as a sure way to heaven, but not the only way.
Says who? Besides, there are facts that are true historical facts not inthe scripture. The assassination of Julius Caesar, for example, is not in the scripture, but it did happen.
When they can get their act together and start acting like the Christ they claim to represent, then they'll gain some credibility
So you don't believe the Church. You are free to do so. However, the behavior of some members of the Church, -- some as awful and un-Christlike as to leave the Church altogether! -- has no bearing on her witness to particulars of the life of Virgin Mother Mary 2,000 years ago.
No it doesn't. Here's the entire text, no mentioning of what they did after Jesus was born altogether:
 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.  Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.  But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.  And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.  Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:  Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.  And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.  And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. (Mathew 1)
Most that you can conclude is tht they lived together under the same roof and traveled together, but even that we know from other scripture -- Matthew 2 and Luke 2.
This allows me to say that Protestant faith, for all the chest-beating about interest in the scripture, is grossly defective and unscriptural, since Communion of Saints is a biblical concept.
Ther historical knowledge of the Church regarding Mary started with the Apostles and the Evangleists. Scripture tells us that Mary lived with St. John the Evangelist. St. Luke somehow gained knowledge of her youth, one that had no public witness, including the ability to cite verbatim her Magnificat prayer (Luke 1:46-55). This indicates the St. Luke received that knowledge, most likely, from Mary directly, or perhaps from someone closely associated with her.
The arguments of anti-Catholics about John 6 in general follow the pattern of the very Jews in that chapter who abandoned Jesus in the end.
Then it is not faith "alone". I am fine, by the way, with the Joint Declaration on Justification that clarifies that the differences betweent he Lutherans and the Catholics on Justification are mostly matter of terminology. But no other Protestant denomination joined Lutherans in that, and the insistence on (1) works being separated from salvation acheived in one's life at the point of conversion, and (2) produced by one already irrevocably saved -- is very common, just review this thread. Again, if you and the denomination you belong to agree with the Declaration and disagree with the Faith Alone nonsense, then I congratulate you. Why don't you start explaining that works are an unseparable part of saving faith to your fellow Protestants rather than defending their heresies wholesale?