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 ... 7,201-7,2507,251-7,3007,301-7,3507,351-7,356 next last
To: cinciella

I much agree.


7,251 posted on 02/26/2011 9:45:02 AM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7249 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
The scripture you quote (acts 6) was one where the new church was seeking to quiet a complaint by the greek believers that there was a favoritism in the distribution of goods to the elderly and needy. This is not about selecting PASTORS but deacons

Thanks, RnMomof7. Your knowledge of the Scriptures is most helpful.

7,252 posted on 02/26/2011 10:37:38 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7250 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Yes, I realize that different cultures created different deities and that each claims to be the "true one". I do think it takes certain amount of maturity and honesty to realize and admit that this is something man-made, and not made in heaven.

Not sure what you mean by "this" being man-made, but I will absolutely agree that ALL religions ARE man-made. The very word means to bind back, man's attempt to bind himself back. However, there is a creator, a first cause, and being that we are "intelligent" ourselves, we can conclude that this "creator" also is intelligent, none of the complexity we see around us came out of chaos, but was designed. I won't go into all the stuff I know you have probably already heard, but suffice it to say, greater minds than ours have delved into the great beyond and come back with a surety. This surety is that this intelligent creator did not just create and then vanish to other universes but created with purpose and created us with purpose and an intellect to seek out answers to why and who and what.

There is objective truth in the midst of subjective, but wisdom allows one to see it clearly. There is a God-way and it's NOT man-made. I sure hope you haven't decided you have reached the epitome of intellect and stop looking for the truth, because it IS there, waiting for you. Real honesty also includes the ability to recognize a wrong path may have been taken and that the road to true honesty was where you were already traveling. Don't rule it out. I wish you Godspeed.

7,253 posted on 02/26/2011 5:48:43 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7247 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
However, there is a creator, a first cause

The first cause argument is self-defeating, at least logically speaking.

and being that we are "intelligent" ourselves, we can conclude that this "creator" also is intelligent

That is a pure conjecture.

none of the complexity we see around us came out of chaos, but was designed.

The Big Bang would have been pretty chaotic.

greater minds than ours have delved into the great beyond and come back with a surety

No mind is perfect and no man can claim to know everything. Appeal to (select) authority does not prove a conjecture. Surety can go both ways, pro and con. Either way, one's own surety is still not a proof.

This surety is that this intelligent creator did not just create and then vanish to other universes but created with purpose and created us with purpose and an intellect to seek out answers to why and who and what.

Man-made religions have created many "sureties" including those that claim there is no purpose at all.

There is objective truth in the midst of subjective

Depends how you define them.

but wisdom allows one to see it clearly

Every sect or cult uses the same stupid argument.

There is a God-way and it's NOT man-made

As a matter of one's belief.

I sure hope you haven't decided you have reached the epitome of intellect

I can say the same about you.

and stop looking for the truth, because it IS there, waiting for you

In order for man to know the whole truth man would have to know everything there is to know.

Real honesty also includes the ability to recognize a wrong path may have been taken

Equally applicable to me and you. I do recognize that I can be wrong, but I am not sure you do. That's why I am an agnostic and you are a believer.

Don't rule it out

Ditto.

7,254 posted on 02/26/2011 11:14:04 PM PST by kosta50
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7253 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Then it may be about time to try to wrap it up and give more attention to other threads and posters.

You are a serious poster, so it is a pleasure. But yes, I agree that a post in the beginning of a thread is worth much more in terms of its readership than when it is one of 7 thousand other posts. I will, in the spirit of letting this thread go, not dwell on your statements that repeat points already made and commented upon by me.

but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of [Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.]

I would say it is the Church’s explanation. Catholics do not interpret, they explain. You are correct, however, in that the scripture rarely explains itself, especially on controversies brought up by the likes of Luther, the Anabaptists et al 1500 years later. The scripture is not the catechism; it is one job of the Church to provide the latter. Regarding the perpetuation of papacy, we have a scriptural evidence and a logical evidence. The scriptural evidence is the oft-repeated promise of Christ that He will not “leave us orphans” and that Divine advice will remain with the Church for ever (John 14:26); further it is precisely the Church built on Peter (in whatever precise allegorical sense) that shall prevail against “gates of hell”. Moreover, Peter himself promised to perpetuate his office:

[11] For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. [12] For which cause I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. [13] But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. [14] Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. [15] And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness.

(2 Peter 1)

Some here insisted that the use of “σκηνωμα” (“tent or “tabernacle”) somehow is a reference to St Peter’s body. I don’t know if you see through the absurdity of this interpretation, but in any event it is clear that St. Peter intended to perpetuate his role as a witness of Christ’s greatness through generations.

The logical argument is twofold. First, it should be the guiding principle of the Church to use the Early Church such as the Holy Apostles set it up, as a model. So if the Early Church had St. Peter as prince of the Apostles, modern bishops should likewise have such prince. Hence the papacy at least in some form, -- and I will easily acknowledge that the precise nature of the papacy can be productively debated with the Orthodox who insist on a less centralized model. It is also consistent with the top-down social organization evedent in the ordination process that we glean form the letters to Timothy and Tutus.

Secondly, since Jesus wanted to “build the Church” somehow “on the rock of Peter”, it would be prudent for us of Christian faith to believe that He succeeded. While it is logically possible that in Christ’s physical absence the Catholic Church went into heresy or even apostasy, and the Protestant (or Mormon) successor did not emerge till centuries later, such hypothesis would have to postulate that in fact the promise of divine guidance failed to materialize for many generations of Christians.

Instead, the plain evidence of scripture suggests that the Church was meant to be hierarchical, of single doctrine, and sacramental, and to persist all the way to the Second Coming in unity across time and geography. It was meant to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews

It is a matter of faith. For a Jew it would be logical to consider only the Old testament infallible as explained by the Rabbis, and for a Christian it would be logical to consider the Old Testament and the New Testament both infallible with the latter fulfilling the typology of the former and the Catholic Church explaining both.

Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned

The so-called African Councils defined the scripture in that local late 4c council as Trent defined it a thousand years later; there was no Bible ever produced without the Deuterocanonical books till the Reformation. It is true that debate preceded the formation of the canon, but so is with any other doctrine of the Church: debate leads to consensus, and if the debate is no longer challenging the faith, no council determination is made, and the issue is considered settled. It is only when debate does not seem to naturally lead to consensus that a council is convened, and at times even an ecumenical Council. The issue of the canon was not debated after the African local councils, and so there was no need for an ecumenical council to fix things. Thus, a de-facto knowledge of the proper canon of scripture existed in the Church since early 4c, but since the Reformers decided to protest everything, Trent had to formulate things for the faithful Catholics. It is a frequent misunderstanding of the Protestants to equate conciliar or papal pronouncements as the beginning of a new doctrine, when the practice of the Church is to so fix a doctrine already fully understood on the grass roots level.

you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)?

Yes, I do deny it. “he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever.” (John 14:16). That means that even after the Scripture is written and the canon is formed, the divine guidance continues, assuredly, in the Church. The magisterial teaching has disadvantages compared to the Holy Scripture as its origin is not from the immediate circle of the Apostles, but it has the advantage also, and that is that the Magisterium can speak on the issues of the day directly.

refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.

It is a problem but it is not a doctrinal problem. With the Protestants we have a case of heresy: salvation by faith alone, authority of the written word alone, denial of the fullness of the sacraments, absence of valid priesthood or consecrated life. With the Orthodox we have issues of church administration such as papacy or universal validity of dogmas proclaimed in councils the Orthodox don’t consider ecumenical. Debate on theological issues is of course possible with the Orthodox (for example, our Thomism versus their Palamism), but it does not exceed the breadth of the debates inside the Western Church. It is, shall we say, a happy and sisterly debate.

[In response that were john Kerry to become a Baptist that would be for him a step toward spiritual death, the same step former Catholics who are now Protestants have made] :you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren,

A sedevacantist is someone who does not think we have a valid pope in the person of the present Pope, and I am of course no sedevacantist. I am especially fond of the Holy Father Benedict, who I think is among this century greatest. I am critical of the Vatican II as are very many conservative and faithful to the Pope Catholics. However, you are reading the “separated brethren” language too self-servingly. The distinction needs to be made, and is invariably made, also after Vatican II, between the incomplete faith of the Protestant who grew up in the Protestant environment absorbing its limitations, and the grave error of the Catholics who fall away. The latter is a step toward a spiritual suicide which they should hurry to reverse.

loyalty to a particular church

It is loyalty to Christ, Who built just one Church, mine.

7,255 posted on 02/27/2011 1:52:11 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7140 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
A group of old men in dresses sitting in Rome has not been appointed to call pastors.

A group of men in dresses sitting in Jerusalem would differ from you:


7,256 posted on 02/27/2011 7:12:59 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 7233 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7
There is never another mention of Matthias again in the NT.. instead we have a NT that is filled with the writings of the man GOD chose as an apostle..

Are you saying that Scriptures show that the appointing of an Apostle is incorrect? What about doubting Thomas? He disappears, right? However, it turns out that he evangelized much of the east coast of India? Should we dismiss him because he does not appear in the Bible after the Gospels?

The scripture you quote (acts 6) was one where the new church was seeking to quiet a complaint by the greek believers that there was a favoritism in the distribution of goods to the elderly and needy. This is not about selecting PASTORS but deacons

I thought that I quoted a whole lot more than Acts 6. And it was about priests, not just deacons.

7,257 posted on 02/27/2011 7:29:51 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 7250 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
You also appeal to Rm. 2:7-10 as teaching salvation by works, but which describe what saved persons do, which is works of faith

Yes, and it also described what a condemned person doesn’t do, just like Matthew 25:31-46. In other words, we are saved or condemned by what we do. Your grasp of this issue is actually close to Catholic, or possible entirely Catholic, but your reading of the Scripture is infected by typical Protestant exegesis, necessary to cram the silly slogan of “faith alone” into your sound belief.

when Rm. 4 contrasts Abraham being justified by works before he was circumcised or under the law, you insist this only means works of the law being disallowed, such as circumcision and works done for social recognition, when again, in reality it is part of his contrast between works morally meriting justification, as under the law, versus faith procuring it, in which he clearly states the latter is counted for righteousness.

When you say “works morally meriting justification” is it necessary to point out which works. But the context shows only works of circumcision, a ritualistic work bringing no one any good. So it is I who reads Romans 4 in its proper context.

if you have man doing works meriting justification which he could boast of but does not, and if your criteria (as stated in other responses) for such salvific works are works of love by one who imitates Christ, then you have souls doing Christian works of love in imitation of Christ before they are justified, in order to be justified!

Justification is a process, not a single event. If a Pagan does works in imitation of Christ without a formal faith in Christ then that is the salvific work of Christ done in him, -- his justification has begun.

That Clement exhorts them to works, just as those who hold to sola fide do

Yes, the Protestant communities of faith do exhort their flock to good works. The difference is that authentic churches do so without telling them at the same time that they are not saved by them.

no man has the ability to do works which would morally merit justification

Of course one can. Matthews 25:31-46 say so. The rub is that the meriting is according to the sovereign will of Christ Who gave us the grace to be saved by out works.

7,258 posted on 02/27/2011 9:14:19 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7146 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
I'm really worried.

Well you should be, because your cult, the OPC is due for its third split ;-)
7,259 posted on 02/28/2011 1:19:45 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7223 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

It’s standard for him — he will never answer a straight question. It’s what the PCA/OPC guys are taught to do,


7,260 posted on 02/28/2011 1:21:22 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7226 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; terycarl
Let's see -- you Dr. Eck said to discern the sheep from the goats by the fruit of their lives.

Now, let's see how many pastors have bad fruit?

How do you reckon with Prof. Philip Jenkins (a Protestant and a researcher on paedophiles) who in his book Pedophiles and Priests writes that "The most-quoted survey of sexual problems among Protestant clergy states that some ten percent are involved in sexual misconduct of some kind, and that 'about two or three percent' are pedophiles, a rate equal or higher than that suggested for Catholic priests." (page 50-51)
7,261 posted on 02/28/2011 1:27:50 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7227 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; caww; boatbums; Gamecock
Interesting, Eck -- does it mean that the OPC and the PCA both, as Gamecock stated believe that

>This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call todayPentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics?

Interesting -- so you don't consider the Pentecostals to be valid Protestants in your opinion?

see Quix -- the Presbyterians are just using you guys as cannon fodder while they despise the Pentecostals (in fact all non-Presbyterians) as damnable heretics

7,262 posted on 02/28/2011 1:31:26 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7228 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; Quix
Dr. Eck -- you need to agree with Quix who says about Jesse Duplantis He’s like Jesus—loves everyone potentially God’s kid . --> do you disagree with him? Come on, say again the OPC truth that the OrthoPresbyterianCult believes that non-Orthod Presbyterian Protestants (Pentecostals, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists etc) are not Christian
7,263 posted on 02/28/2011 1:33:50 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7232 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Alex Murphy

Nice one quix — evidently you don’t realise that a Presbyterian C of American poster also despises pentecostals just as much as the OPCer does


7,264 posted on 02/28/2011 1:35:10 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7235 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
souls doing works of a believer in order to become a believer

I’d say, worker doing works of the worker in order to become also a believer. Faith is a good thing but faith without works is dead.

It is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable

But Jesus never said that. He simply says, do this and you are justified, don’t do this and you are not justified. You seem to understand that it is works that counts, not faith alone and then you turn around and construct this faith-alone nonsense out of whole cloth.

a kind of faith that works obedience

First, no. It is a kind of faith that works love. God doesn’t ask us to obey Him, He asks us to Love Him. Second, as your Catholic personality understands, since faith must work something to procure salvation, we are not saved by faith alone.

Cornelius did good works which were preparatory to conversion

They were already conversion in progress.

Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 16: Of Good Works These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith [c]: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness [d], strengthen their assurance [e], edify their brethren [f], adorn the profession of the Gospel [g], stop the mouths of the adversaries [h], and glorify God [i], whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto [k], that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

This is legalistic trickery. The good part is that rightly this confession separates good works from works in general, and certainly from works done for a temporal reward or under a legal obligation, juist as the Gospel does. It is also not incorrect to say that good works are fruits and evidences of faith. So that chapter 16 is by itself a passing grade, maybe a C. Not higher than that, because the idea that God who knows our hearts nevertheless for some reason needs evidences and fruits is silly. If I give my shirt to another, that is not because God needs evidence of faith but because that slob needs a shirt.

But the Westminster confession of “faith” also says in Ch. 11

I. Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies;[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3] II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[5]
This is counterscriptural garbage. The reference to the most odious part, [2] is Romans 4, “to him that worketh not”, a passage dealing with the fact that the justification of Abraham once in his life was advanced by a pure faith before being circumcised.

most understand Rome as disallowing being confident you are saved in their present tense

Most simply don’t understand very much about “Rome”. One should indeed be confident that the motherly cares of the Catholic Church will lead him to salvation assuredly. But that confidence is that of a builder who has the materials, the tools and the skill to build; it is not the stupid and sinful false confidence that a once-saved-always-saved Protestant has, who once decided he is an accomplished piece of work.

you think "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) refers to opposition by Simon?

I think that the question is rhetorical but this turn of a phrase is only possible if the water was to be either given or not given for that purpose; this suggests not a public space but a water in a private possession, most naturally, a bucket or some other vessel.

Annalex: the Eucharist does not make one born again [the Baptism does]

Daniel: Yes, that is clear, and which means that Jn. 6:53 cannot refer to the Eucharist, as having life has already been accomplished by believing the word

Baptism begins a Christian life, the Eucharist sustains it. Both are necessary in order to obtain life eternal.

only once in all the epistles to the churches on doing that is the Lord's supper mentioned, and which was to correct a problem with the manner of doing so

This is true of most Pauline Epistles, -- they are written to correct problems, not to teach comprehensive theology. Now, why is it that the fact that the Eucharist is mentioned in every gospel, -- the actual Eucharist being offered at the Last Supper in the synoptic, and its nature discussed at length in John’s – is not enough unless several epistles also discuss it? Hermeneutics replacing the Bible again?

Annalex: If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?

Daniel: You are reading this into the text. They did not have to leave, but left for the same reason that Nicodemus supposed he had to be physically born again

The difference is that with Nicodemus, Jesus explains that the birth of the spirit is not the same as birth of the water. In the case of the Jews in John 6, Jesus explains that indeed He would give them His flesh to eat and they leave. If Jesus meant faith when He said “food”, He could have explained himself better like He did with Nicodemus, but He never softened his “food indeed”. That is because he meant it – He was, you know, Catholic.

As for 1Cor. 11, Paul's words are not the “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you consume Jesus body and blood, soul and divinity,” which you read into words such as “drinking” a cup, but “ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.”

The Eucharist certainly shows the Lord’s death, but it also is the Body of Christ as is clear from 1 Cor 11:29.

i do not think the early church doubted such things as whether Moses authored most of the Pentateuch, or if Jonah was really swallowed by a fish, by which things Rome's approved scholarly works typically deny

Matter of fact, you can find plenty of allegorical explanations in the Holy Fathers of the Church alongside literal ones. In today’s gospel, for example, Venerable Bede explains:

under the name of camel, He wished Himself to he understood, because He bore the burden of our weakness; and by the needle, He understands the prickings, that is, the pains of His Passion. By the eye of a needle, therefore, He means the straits of His Passion (Feb. 28)

I know, it is not the same as explaining away Jonas’ whale, but this illustrates the style of so-called “mystical” explanations common among the fathers. The idea that the Bible has multiple meanings for the same passage is very patristic and very Catholic.

the surety of the claim that Scripture and history renders Rome to be the 1st century church is based upon her claim that her claim is infallible truth

It is based on the fact that both the acts of the Early Church and the doctrines given in the New Testament all match the Catholic Church today with differences being matter of elaboration and style.

7,265 posted on 02/28/2011 5:20:50 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7147 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
when Mt 1:24 Mk 8:39
before the event knew her not shall not taste death
event she brought forth her firstborn son they see the kingdom of God coming in power
after Joseph knows Mary carnally? they die?

7,266 posted on 02/28/2011 6:32:10 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7150 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
The restriction on eating blood was based upon life being in the blood

If from that you conclude that God told the Jews not to kill animals, you are wrong. They killed them all right.

7,267 posted on 02/28/2011 6:34:45 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7153 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
source?

The Church.

7,268 posted on 02/28/2011 6:35:29 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7154 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
let’s see if by “works” we mean the same thing. I understand the term to indicate some sort of action or visible evidence of one’s faith as Paul and James described

The "good works" are works of self-denial examples of which are given in Matthew 25:35-36.

7,269 posted on 02/28/2011 6:37:52 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7160 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; count-your-change
Yes, we did have this discussion many times.

do you mean to imply that your "works" do not include refraining from the "thou shalt nots"?

One certainly has to obey the shalt nots of the Bible in order to be saved, but merely obeying them does not save one, as the Sermon on the Mount explain. One has, in addition, to deny self and give his all to Christ, and then he will be saved:

[17] And when he was gone forth into the way, a certain man running up and kneeling before him, asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may receive life everlasting? [18] And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God. [19] Thou knowest the commandments: Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, bear not false witness, do no fraud, honour thy father and mother. [20] But he answering, said to him: Master, all these things I have observed from my youth. [21] And Jesus looking on him, loved him, and said to him: One thing is wanting unto thee: go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me. [22] Who being struck sad at that saying, went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [23] And Jesus looking round about, saith to his disciples: How hardly shall they that have riches, enter into the kingdom of God! [24] And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches, to enter into the kingdom of God? [25] It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. [26] Who wondered the more, saying among themselves: Who then can be saved? [27] And Jesus looking on them, saith: With men it is impossible; but not with God: for all things are possible with God.

[28] And Peter began to say unto him: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. [29] Jesus answering, said: Amen I say to you, there is no man who hath left house or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] Who shall not receive an hundred times as much, now in this time; houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions: and in the world to come life everlasting.

(Mark 10)


7,270 posted on 02/28/2011 6:43:03 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7161 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom
[regarding Eph 2:8-10] grace THROUGH faith not by works

It says there that grace is not of works.

You conclude because it doesn't describe what those works are you can then assume it excludes your "works of love".

No, Eph 2:8-10 does not exclude any works, and I never said it does. It says that grace is not a result of any works whatsoever. It helps to understand the argument you are attempting to respond to.

Yet there are other verses such as Titus 3:5

Titus 3:5-8 follows the same pattern as Eph 2:8-10:

[5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost; [6] Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: [7] That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting. [8] It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works.

The grace that alone saves us is not a result of our works, but good works are necessary for salvation.

7,271 posted on 02/28/2011 6:50:51 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7162 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Catholic is a denomination of Christianity

No it is not. Denominations are abhorrent to God who did not want any:

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us (John 17:21)

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians (all 100 of them) are denominations, and they are the ugly product of the so-called Reformation. The Church is simply the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Christ founded.

7,272 posted on 02/28/2011 6:55:43 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7163 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Not found anywhere in God’s word. You live in fear

with fear and trembling work out your salvation. (Philippians 2:12)

It is not a bad idea to familiarize yourself with the scripture before telling me what is and what is not in it.

7,273 posted on 02/28/2011 6:59:24 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7175 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; RnMomof7; Gamecock; Alex Murphy
Ratzinger is a false bishop of Rome because he is not elected by the congregation

"Doctor", he was consecrated bishop and elected Pope according to the process established to that end by the Church where he is a bishop.

7,274 posted on 02/28/2011 7:02:40 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7185 | View Replies]

To: presently no screen name; Quix
Google is your friend:

Athanasius of Alexandria (Greek: Ἀθανάσιος, Athanásios) (c. 293 – 2 May 373), also given the titles Athanasius the Great, Pope Athanasius I of Alexandria, and Athanasius the Apostolic, was a Christian theologian, bishop of Alexandria, Church Father, and a noted Egyptian leader of the fourth century. He is best remembered for his role in the conflict with Arius and Arianism. At the First Council of Nicaea, Athanasius argued against Arius and his doctrine that Christ is of a distinct substance from the Father.[1]

Athanasius is counted as one of the four Great Doctors[2] in the Eastern Orthodox Christian tradition and is a Doctor of the Church in the Catholic Church. Athanasius is venerated as a Christian saint, whose feast day is 2 May in Western Christianity, 15 May in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and 18 January in the other Eastern Orthodox churches.

[...]

Athanasius was restored on at least five separate occasions, perhaps as many as seven. This gave rise to the expression "Athanasius contra mundum" or "Athanasius against the world". He spent his final years repairing all the damage done during the earlier years of violence, dissent, and exile, and returning to his writing and preaching undisturbed. On May 2. 373, having consecrated Peter II, one of his presbyters as his successor, Athanasius died quietly in his house.

Athanasius of Alexandria


7,275 posted on 02/28/2011 7:14:44 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7186 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another [...] Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.

Bishops to not write "pastoral" letters telling their fellow bishops what to do; it is a severe violation of the Canon Law.

7,276 posted on 02/28/2011 7:16:41 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7189 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm


7,277 posted on 02/28/2011 7:18:55 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7275 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy; metmom; daniel1212; Quix; 1000 silverlings; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums
Annalex: Read the Bible once in a while and you will become Catholic or maybe Orthodox.

Alex: Buit if you read it every day, you'll stay Protestant.

Go ahead, read it every day, you'll end up Catholic faster. I do. If your point is that not enough Catholics know their own Bible, you are absolutely correct.

7,278 posted on 02/28/2011 7:19:19 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7197 | View Replies]

To: annalex
"Doctor", he was consecrated bishop and elected Pope according to the process established to that end by the Church where he is a bishop.

He also earned a real doctorate in theology in 1953. The Vatican.va website says: In 1953 he obtained his doctorate in theology with a thesis entitled "People and House of God in St Augustine’s Doctrine of the Church".

God has given us a steward who knows Augustine and therefore is able to protect God's people against Calvinism and all those who would pervert Augustine's writings.

7,279 posted on 02/28/2011 7:34:46 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 7274 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Unlike you, I’m quite familiar with what is and isn’t in the scriptures because I actually read them.


7,280 posted on 02/28/2011 7:48:35 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Going 'EGYPT' - 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7273 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The Catholic Church is not a denomination.

If what you mean by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction”, or a semi-autonomy, then you will have to admit that even the Catholic Church is not "one". According to David A. Barrett’s World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Survey of Churches and Religions in the Modern World A.D. 1900—2000 (ed. David A. Barrett; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), there are seven major ecclesiastical “blocs” under which these 22,190 distinct denominations fall (Barrett, 14-15): (1) Roman Catholicism, which accounts for 223 denominations; (2) Protestant, which accounts for 8,196 denominations; (3) Orthodox, which accounts for 580 denominations; (4) Non-White Indigenous, which accounts for 10,956 denominations; (5) Anglican, which accounts for 240 denominations; (6) Marginal Protestant, which includes Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, New Age groups, and all cults (Barrett, 14), and which accounts for 1,490 denominations; and (7) Catholic (Non-Roman), which accounts for 504 denominations.

The Orthodox have nineteen traditions, while the Roman Catholic has sixteen of which are including Latin-rite local, Latin-rite catholic, Latin/Eastern-rite local, Latin/Eastern-rite catholic, Syro-Malabarese, Ukrainian, Romanian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, Ruthenian, Hungarian, plural Oriental rites, Syro-Malankarese, Slovak, and Coptic.

There are four major groups within Roman Catholicism: (1) Catholic Pentecostals (Roman Catholics involved in the organized Catholic Charismatic Renewal); (2) Christo-Pagans (Latin American Roman Catholics who combine folk-Catholicism with traditional Amerindian paganism); (3) Evangelical Catholics (Roman Catholics who also regard themselves as Evangelicals); and (4) Spiritist Catholics (Roman Catholics who are active in organized high or low spiritism, including syncretistic spirit-possession cults). And of course, we all know that this list can be supplemented by distinctions between moderate Roman Catholics (represented by almost all Roman Catholic scholars), Conservative Roman Catholics (represented by Scott Hahn and most Roman Catholic apologists), Traditionalist Roman Catholics (represented by apologist Gerry Matatics), and Sedevacantist Roman Catholics (those who believe the chair of Peter is currently vacant).

So, I know, Annalex, you probably would love if everyone saw your religion as unified, but in reality, there are divisions and various beliefs among the people who identify as Catholic. The unity that Christ prayed for IS an answered prayer because those who trust in him as their savior are all members of the same spiritual body, the outward labels or signs on doors may be different but there is still unity on the major tenets that make up the Christian faith. Your organization does NOT have dominion over the name Christian. It is Jesus' body and he says who belongs within it.

7,281 posted on 02/28/2011 8:17:41 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7272 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The grace that alone saves us is not a result of our works, but good works are necessary for salvation.

We are saved by grace. We do not nor can we earn or merit salvation because sin must be atoned. The wages of sin is death, not good works, works of love, etc. Jesus made that atonement for us and we receive this grace from God by faith in him. The Texas two-step won't work here. You can't on one hand say we are saved by grace and then on the other say it is by faith AND works. If it is by grace, it can't be by works and vice versa.

Romans 11:6 And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. But if it is of works, it is no longer grace; otherwise work is no longer work.

7,282 posted on 02/28/2011 9:07:02 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7271 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

I think the world, and not only the Catholic world, has been greatly blessed with Pope Benedict, one of the greatest popes of modern times, a clear thinker and a true reformer.


7,283 posted on 03/01/2011 5:15:07 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7279 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
I actually read them

Good, good, I am proud of you.

7,284 posted on 03/01/2011 5:16:03 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7280 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
you probably would love if everyone saw your religion as unified, but in reality, there are divisions and various beliefs among the people who identify as Catholics

The distinctions you point out are in part imaginary and in part exist but such as they are, they reflect the breadth of the spiritual life of the Catholic people. In fact, the method your authrour chose is not the best, more natural way to further subdivide Catholics would be by religious order, such as Bendedictine, Franciscan, Jesuit, etc. which really reflect different spiritualities.

But nether of these are denominations; we all worship in the same Church and beleive in the same dogmas. The more important division that exists in the Church is that with the Orthodox, who are a collection of local Churches not in union with Rome, and the small group you mention, Sedevacantists. Those sometime are counted as Catholics with imperfections and sometimes are not. At least for the purposes of the exposition of the Catholic doctrine they are all Catholic. I for example, would use Orthodox apologetical material alongside Western Catholic.

While these distinctions are as old as the Church itself, "denomination" is the invention of Protestantism. The difference is not in the words, of course, but in the essence. The idea that the Bible alone is the source of doctrine has lead to apperance of leaders, like Calvin, Knox, or Wesley who each hold only their doctrine the full truth. In contrast, no group inside Catholicism rejects in any part the theological doctrines of the other and they do not have separate leadership structures.

7,285 posted on 03/01/2011 5:33:42 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7281 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
You can't on one hand say we are saved by grace and then on the other say it is by faith AND works

Both parts are true. God sends His grace. We respond with faith and good works.

If it is by grace, it can't be by works [Romans 11:6]

Correct. That is the Catholic teaching. Grace is not of works.

If you don't understand the above, please ask, before complaining that it is the fifth time we engage in the same discussion (7161). Unless you understand the Catholic faith, it is not yet discussion, it is just you making noise on the thread while I repeat what you did not grasp previously.

7,286 posted on 03/01/2011 5:41:24 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7282 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another [...] Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.

Bishops to not write "pastoral" letters telling their fellow bishops what to do; it is a severe violation of the Canon Law.

Forget for the moment that Clement did not tell anyone what to do. There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years nor was there a Papacy when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

Feel free to develop your own retroactive history. You cannot apply your Canon Law retroactively

7,287 posted on 03/01/2011 1:56:32 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7276 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
it was a pastoral letter from one equal church to another [...] Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.

Bishops to not write "pastoral" letters telling their fellow bishops what to do; it is a severe violation of the Canon Law.

Forget for the moment that Clement did not tell anyone what to do. There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years nor was there a Papacy when Clement was Bishop of Rome.

Feel free to develop your own retroactive history. You cannot apply your Canon Law retroactively

7,288 posted on 03/01/2011 1:56:44 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7276 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years

On that, you are quite wrong. This is the relevant canon from c. AD 400:

35. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

36. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

(Apostolic Constitution Book VIII)

7,289 posted on 03/01/2011 5:20:45 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7287 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Condescension aside, I understand all too well the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding salvation by faith and works. What you seem to fail to understand is that those who have come from that religious expression into the light of the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ do not automatically forget their previous teachings. You say the "Catholic" belief is that we are saved by God's grace. Well and good. If not for his grace towards us, we would have no hope of redemption. But grace is God's action towards us and, in order for grace to be grace, it means that it is offered freely. Grace (charis), by its very definition, means the state of kindness and favor towards someone, often with a focus on a benefit given to the object. In other words, by an act of mercy and love, God chose to redeem us from condemnation, not because of our own merit or worth but because of his grace. Consequently, he also spells out to us how we acquire this grace, which is called a gift. Romans 5:1,2 says: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. So we access grace by faith, according to Scripture.

My point was that you cannot make a gift a reward for works, it no longer is grace but is instead deserved or earned. Grace is God's gift to us which we then receive by faith. You may choose to deny it but God is definitely clear in his word that faith is what he expects of us and our actions become an outgrowth of the work of the Holy Spirit within us. The place of works in a Christian's life is as evidence of the new nature. To claim that works supplement faith in the receiving of the gift is to cast aside the grace of God in favor of human merit. Trusting in anything else than the blood of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins is rejecting the gift of eternal life.

7,290 posted on 03/01/2011 6:16:59 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7286 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
God chose to redeem us from condemnation, not because of our own merit or worth but because of his grace. Consequently, he also spells out to us how we acquire this grace, which is called a gift. Romans 5:1,2 says: Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand. So we access grace by faith, according to Scripture.

Yes. This is all true and you did retain it from the Catholic Church.

To claim that works supplement faith in the receiving of the gift is to cast aside the grace of God in favor of human merit

Both faith and good works is what we do under grace. You are correct when you say that "our actions become an outgrowth of the work of the Holy Spirit within us" but the same applies to faith also. We are not saved by merely responding to grace with faith but also by choosing to do those good works, -- we are not saved by faith alone but we are saved by grace alone:

[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) [6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2)

by works faith was made perfect (James 2:22)

[6] Who will render to every man according to his works. [7] To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: [8] But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. [9] Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. [10] But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Romans 2)


7,291 posted on 03/02/2011 5:23:33 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7290 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums

Yes.

“All is grace”.

ALL


7,292 posted on 03/02/2011 5:35:44 AM PST by Running On Empty ((The three sorriest words: "It's too late"))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7291 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years

On that, you are quite wrong. This is the relevant canon from c. AD 400:

35. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

36. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

(Apostolic Constitution Book VIII)

Oh come now, I find it difficult to understand how it is possible for anyone to claim the Apostolic Constitution ever purported to be Canon Law.

Further, and probably more important, the Apostolic Constitution is agreed upon as a forgery by both Catholic and Protestant scholars.

Even the "friendly" Catholic Encyclopedia finds it necessary to acknowledge this in it's opening pagagraph:

"A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian , worship, and doctrine , intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy , and to some extent for the laity."

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS

I repeat; There was no Canon Law in the early Church!

Please make an effort to support your arguments with historical fact.

7,293 posted on 03/02/2011 11:56:04 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7289 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
the Apostolic Constitution is agreed upon as a forgery by both Catholic and Protestant scholars.

They believe fables and lies.

7,294 posted on 03/02/2011 12:07:39 PM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7293 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
From your link:
Only that portion of it to which has been given the name "Apostolic Canons" was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.

What forgery? An "apostolic constitution" is a certain type of papal document; the term is in use today. It does not pretend to be written by the Holy Apostles. The issue you raise is, was there a canon law and the answer is that most certainly there was such as soon as the Councils were able to convene. This particular document, Book 8, speaks to the issue in focus, jurisdictional authority, and is written in the form of legislation: it is meant to be law, and it was law.

Nor is it the oldest; here is a similar canon of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314), even though it does not speak directly to the issue of jurisdiction among installed bishops. This surely shows that -- again, as soon as the Church could assemble openly as a single body, -- the Church legislated, just as Christ wanted her to (Acts 20:28, Matthew 18:18).

Canon 18

If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honour. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honour of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.

Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)


7,295 posted on 03/02/2011 5:33:53 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7293 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

Oh, that’s rich — do you consdier the Apostolic Creed to be a forgery too? Does this mean that you agree with the unitarians in denying the Trinity?


7,296 posted on 03/03/2011 6:50:55 AM PST by Cronos ("They object to tradition saying that they themselves are wiser than the apostles" - Ire.III.2.2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7294 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
From your link:

Only that portion of it to which has been given the name "Apostolic Canons" was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.

What forgery? An "apostolic constitution" is a certain type of papal document; the term is in use today. It does not pretend to be written by the Holy Apostles. The issue you raise is, was there a canon law and the answer is that most certainly there was such as soon as the Councils were able to convene. This particular document, Book 8, speaks to the issue in focus, jurisdictional authority, and is written in the form of legislation: it is meant to be law, and it was law.

Nor is it the oldest; here is a similar canon of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314), even though it does not speak directly to the issue of jurisdiction among installed bishops. This surely shows that -- again, as soon as the Church could assemble openly as a single body, -- the Church legislated, just as Christ wanted her to (Acts 20:28, Matthew 18:18).

Canon 18

If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honour. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honour of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.

Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)

Please pay attention. The meaning of words is important and the misuse of these words, whether intentional or not, is dangerously misleading.

1. The first paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia link I provided:

A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity.

2. (Dictionary.com) pseu·do   /ˈsudoÊŠ/

–adjective

1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.

3. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions were "pretended", "false", "spurious". ie. a forgery.

I invite you to provide documentation concerning the authenticity of "The Apostolic Constitutions". Failing that it is disingenuous to quote them as "proof" of any argument.

4. The "Canons" of any Council, are not, and never have been, Canon Law. They are two different animals.

5. I believe it is important for you to learn the distinction between "Canon Law" and a Canon of a Council whether fake or real. Failing that I have no interesting in pursuing this dead end.

6. I repeat: There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years.

7,297 posted on 03/03/2011 2:08:10 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7295 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
From your link:

Only that portion of it to which has been given the name "Apostolic Canons" was received; but even the fifty of these canons which had then been accepted by the Western Church were not regarded as of certain Apostolic origin. Where known, however, the Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical legislation.

What forgery? An "apostolic constitution" is a certain type of papal document; the term is in use today. It does not pretend to be written by the Holy Apostles. The issue you raise is, was there a canon law and the answer is that most certainly there was such as soon as the Councils were able to convene. This particular document, Book 8, speaks to the issue in focus, jurisdictional authority, and is written in the form of legislation: it is meant to be law, and it was law.

Nor is it the oldest; here is a similar canon of the Synod of Ancyra (AD 314), even though it does not speak directly to the issue of jurisdiction among installed bishops. This surely shows that -- again, as soon as the Church could assemble openly as a single body, -- the Church legislated, just as Christ wanted her to (Acts 20:28, Matthew 18:18).

Canon 18

If any who have been constituted bishops, but have not been received by the parish to which they were designated, shall invade other parishes and wrong the constituted [bishops] there, stirring up seditions against them, let such persons be suspended from office and communion. But if they are willing to accept a seat among the presbyterate, where they formerly were presbyters, let them not be deprived of that honour. But if they shall act seditiously against the bishops established there, the honour of the presbyterate also shall be taken from them and themselves expelled.

Council of Ancyra (A.D. 314)

Please pay attention. The meaning of words is important and the misuse of these words, whether intentional or not, is dangerously misleading.

1. The first paragraph of the Catholic Encyclopedia link I provided:

A fourth-century pseudo-Apostolic collection, in eight books, of independent, though closely related, treatises on Christian discipline, worship, and doctrine, intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy, and to some extent for the laity.

2. (Dictionary.com) pseu·do   /ˈsudoÊŠ/

–adjective

1. not actually but having the appearance of; pretended; false or spurious; sham.

3. The so-called Apostolic Constitutions were "pretended", "false", "spurious". ie. a forgery.

I invite you to provide documentation concerning the authenticity of "The Apostolic Constitutions". Failing that it is disingenuous to quote them as "proof" of any argument.

4. The "Canons" of any Council, are not, and never have been, Canon Law. They are two different animals.

5. I believe it is important for you to learn the distinction between "Canon Law" and a Canon of a Council whether fake or real. Failing that I have no interesting in pursuing this dead end.

6. I repeat: There was no Canon Law for more than 1,000 years.

7,298 posted on 03/03/2011 2:08:24 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7295 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; Dr. Eckleburg
Oh, that’s rich — do you consdier the Apostolic Creed to be a forgery too? Does this mean that you agree with the unitarians in denying the Trinity?

This comment wins the prize for today!


7,299 posted on 03/03/2011 2:37:58 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7296 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg

No one pretends the Apostles wrote the Canons themselves.

The word “pseudo” is often used to qualify instances of unstated authorship in order to distingush them from literal authroship. We have, for example, “Pseudo-Chrysostom”. That is someone whose writings were attributed to St. John Chrysostom but he was not him. This in no way diminishes the value of the writing itself; Pseudo-Chrysostom, despite his unknown identity, is frequently and admiringly excerpted in Caten Aurea, for example. You can ascertain that for yourself by reading at random at the URL which is near my signature.

It helps to be familiar with the terminology of the field in which you attempt to opine.

If you have in mind some distinction between a council promulgating canons for people to obey and Canon Law, please explain what the distinction is. As you see from the documents I showed you, interference across bishoprics was against the canons in the Early Church.


7,300 posted on 03/03/2011 5:47:13 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7297 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,201-7,2507,251-7,3007,301-7,3507,351-7,356 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