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?
As kosta pointed out it was in use since the end of the sixth century and was "oficially" formalized at the Council of Trent.
In any event whenever it was practiced and wherever it was practiced it was "new". Many Catholics seem to believe the Latin Mass was practiced from the beginning.
I knew you meant "reverence" my son but couldn't resist the impulse to pull your chain. :-)
Those two guys were showing reverence at a typical Catholic Charismatic Mass. (Not true.)
Apologies. Could you tell me what was “personal” in my post?
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.
That's my cat you ninny. She lost her teeth and I made use of a set of false teeth left behind by my grandmother.
Doesn't follow. It was brought up in proper context. Being reminded is not the same as being accused again.
Prior to 1950 Catholics could agrue and disagree concerning the Bodily Assumption of Mary. After 1950 BANG! no more discussion allowed.
Prattle as much as you wish about "always believed", etc. it was cast in concrete in 1950.
It was making the thread “about” the other Freeper which is also a form of “making it personal.”
The Pope "owns" the Bishops in that he has sole authority to hire and fire them. If that is not a command and control structure what is?
A skunk by any other name is still a skunk.
When did the Greek Church, if they have done so yet, adopt an English language Bible? If so, which version is it? I guarantee you it is not, and never will be the Douay Rheins.
Thank you RM. Again, my apoliogies to boatbums.
Under those long black robes are tall black jack boots in “Christian” Greece. Yipppeeee skipppeee!!!!
Then they have no reason to be arresting anyone for "proselytizing".
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.
Big deal. Being *religious* means nothing. Lots of people are *religious* and it doesn't get them anywhere because it's not faith in Christ. It's essentially a vaccine against true faith as people trust in it and feel good about themselves, lulling them into a false sense of security by causing them to think they're actually doing something productive in regard to their afterlife.
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.
Let me see now. Greek is the most highly *religious* country in Europe with its religious beliefs intertwined with its society, like Judaism, and yet they manage to divorce it completely from politics, but still arrest someone one for *proselytizing*.
Do you seriously expect us to believe that they divorce their religious beliefs which are so intertwined with their culture from their politics.
Give us a break. Not buying it.
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.
2 Timothy 3:1-7 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
This is the perfect example of what a Catholic influenced country is like in regard to freedom of religion and what a Protestant influenced country like the US is like in regard to freedom of religion.
Predominantly Catholic countries have very little religious freedom. Predominantly Protestant countries do.
I don’t think it’s divorced either. Our guide didn’t think so either.
Mary living with John and her reply to Elizabeth are found in Luke and are available to all. It is not special to the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the reply, boatbums.
“1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice:...”
So the sacrifice of the Eucharist came first? It “made present” Christ’s sacrifice before it happened. Really, annalex, really?
Do you know their laws? Do you know why they are being arrested, (if they are being arrested!)?
Big deal. Being *religious* means nothing. Lots of people are *religious* and it doesn't get them anywhere because it's not faith in Christ
Greeks are 99% Christian.
people trust in it and feel good about themselves, lulling them into a false sense of security by causing them to think they're actually doing something productive in regard to their afterlife
The same can be said about Christians. Have you been to "afterlife"?
Greek [sic] is the most highly *religious* country in Europe with its religious beliefs intertwined with its society, like Judaism, and yet they manage to divorce it completely from politics, but still arrest someone one for *proselytizing*.
Who said they completely divorce it from politics? We don't, why should they? Again, you are saying they are arresting posleyutizers (examples please), but don;t mention on what charges. Israel arrests missionaries too when they break Israeli laws and nobody in the Protestant community says about it.
Again, there is no one to "proselytize" to in Greece. They are 99% Christian. The Protestant missionaries need to go where the population and the culture is not Christian.
2 Timothy 3:1-7 But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
Oy, not again! In "last days"? Paul believed Jesus was coming back real soon. Guess what, he was wrong! If he was wrong on that, why should he be right on anything else?
Also, when was there time when people were not lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy?
This is the perfect example of what a Catholic influenced country is like in regard to freedom of religion
LOL! Catholic-influenced? Greece?
and what a Protestant influenced country like the US is like in regard to freedom of religion
Can you show me where in the Greek Constitution it says there is no freedom of religion?
Predominantly Catholic countries have very little religious freedom. Predominantly Protestant countries do
I hope you don't represent an average Protestant. If you did, I think that would be very troubling. Austria is a predominantly Catholic, so is France, Spain, Poland, Italy, Ireland, Malta, etc.
Constitutions are easily ignored unless there is strong enforcement.
Some easily checked examples of state religions existing under constitutions that supposedly guaranteed religious freedom:
“Issues involving proselytism
Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the rise of democracy in the Eastern Block, the Russian Orthodox Church has enjoyed a revival. However, it takes exception to what it considers illegitimate proselytizing by the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army, Jehovah’s Witnesses and other religious movements  in what it refers to as its canonical territory.
Greece has a long history of conflict, mostly with Jehovah’s Witnesses but also with some Pentecostals over its laws on proselytism. This situation stems from a law passed in the 1930s by the dictator Ioannis Metaxas. A Jehovah’s Witness, Minos Kokkinakis, won the equivalent of US $14,400 in damages from the Greek state after being arrested repeatedly for the ‘offence’ of preaching his faith from door to door. In another case, Larissis vs. Greece, a member of the Pentecostal church also won a case in the European Court of Human Rights.
2. Starks, R & W.S. Bainbridge The future of religion: secularization, revival and cult formation (1985) Berkely/Los Angeles/London: University of California press”
Other groups like Baptists too have come under attack for speaking to others about their beliefs.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that unsaved people can get to Heaven? That goes against the Scriptures which tell us that nothing imperfect can enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Or are you saying that this unsaved man will have rewards in Heaven apart from his eternal Judgement to hell? Nothing from Heaven passes to hell - remember that the damned man was denied even a drop of water touched onto his tongue. What exactly are you trying to say?
True, we have some supposedly failed Catholics on FR who routinely show massive ignorance of the Faith as well. I'll never forget that acapella Church of Christ preacher hurl at me that if English was good enough for Jesus it was good enough for America. And he meant it, too. I don't know how far he was expecting to go, but I was helping (!!!) his mood along in a rather spirited religious debate (heh heh heh).
Certainly possible. I've been impressed by the extent that they have opened and are opening, though.
That's my cat you ninny. She lost her teeth and I made use of a set of false teeth left behind by my grandmother.
As long as you don't mix them up with yours. :)
And some then continue in the same vein as the persecutors of the early Church in Rome.
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.
They influenced the general actions and perceptions of the Church - the (now) waning liberal influence for example which came out of the 1950s and 1960s.
As written by whom? The original authors? The current NIV? You have made an excellent point that if one does not interpret through the eyes of the consensus patrum, then that interpretation can support, why, any heresy that can be imagined by men, and influenced by the lord of this world.
Is that a candy necklace?
What I mean is that the rich young man was convinced of his own righteousness - like many are - and Jesus, who knew his heart, revealed to him the one area he had not even considered and that was his love of money. This love of material wealth was so strong that the very idea of, if by following Christ it meant he had to give it up, he chose instead to forsake Jesus. What I am not implying, and what I don't believe Jesus was either, is that people can be good enough to get to heaven on their own merit.
When Jesus told him to give all he had to the poor and follow him and great would be his reward in heaven, he was not saying those who do this are saved in that action of giving to the poor, but that those who follow him AND do these good works will have a great reward in heaven. Remember when he said anyone who gave up houses or lands or mother or father, etc., for Christ's sake would receive a hundred fold in this life and in the one to come.