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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,001-6,0506,051-6,1006,101-6,150 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: caww; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; count-your-change; Diamond; ...

Catholics keep missing the point that Jesus is our great high priest. That’s his role now. He is no longer the sacrifice. That was done once and is over with.

But of course, if HE’S our high priest and not the ongoing sacrifice, they’d have no need for their own priesthood which they have set up. They’d be shooting themselves in the foot if they actually taught what Scripture teaches about the priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of the believer.

Their whole hierarchy would come crumbling down and the Catholic church would lose its grip on millions of people worldwide because people would realize that it’s not needed any more to access God.

All those priests would be obsolete and have to get a real job and work to earn a living.


6,051 posted on 12/28/2010 3:07:52 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6050 | View Replies]

To: annalex; count-your-change; RnMomof7; boatbums; metmom
Annalex: Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

Old Reggie cites Matthew 26:26-28

I don't understand what is supposed to follow from Matthew 26:26-28 that is contrary to what I said. The species contain body and blood of Jesus and since He is resurrected in the body, blood and flesh are united in Him again. The Apostle ate the consecrated bread and consecrated wine and the two united in their mouths to form the Whole Risen Christ. The two species, by the way, are united also during the Consecration as a part of the consecrated host is dropped into the consecrated wine.

The bread remained bread and the wine remained wine. There is no Scriptural reference whatsoever which even hints that either/or is acceptable. What is so hard to understand about that?

Stick with your man made interpretations. You'll not find it in Scripture.

6,052 posted on 12/28/2010 3:13:55 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5969 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; RnMomof7; metmom; blue-duncan; Iscool; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy
Annalex: You were there? [at the times of Mary]

Old Reggie: Maybe.

No you were not, but somebody Catholic was present. St. Luke, for example.

Luke was a Jew.
6,053 posted on 12/28/2010 3:22:57 PM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5974 | View Replies]

To: metmom
If you'll forgive my sticking my nose in, the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist host is not limited to the Roman Catholic Church.

Do you question that the Disciples could have consumed the true body and blood of Christ before His cruciifixtion because He couldn't exist in more than one form at one time?

6,054 posted on 12/28/2010 3:23:09 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6047 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; count-your-change

I’d stay away from the Long Recensions were I you.


6,055 posted on 12/28/2010 3:26:00 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6046 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

So, when Jesus took the bread and said, *This is my body* and when he took the cup and said *This is my blood* He didn't really mean that the bread was ONLY His flesh and the cup was ONLY His blood?

And this from Catholics who demand that every other part of that passage be taken literally so that the cup become the blood and the bread becomes the flesh and that we have to really literally eat it?

How did the church arrive at this conclusion that partaking of either element was adequate when Jesus Himself said to partake of both?

What gives them the right to usurp the teachings of Jesus?

The snippets are being snippefied.

6,056 posted on 12/28/2010 3:26:06 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5431 | View Replies]

To: caww; stfassisi
We cannot be their Savior...only Christ can forgive them

"And forge us our trespasses as we have forgiven those who trespassed against us" [Mt. 6:12]

"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." "[Jn. 20:23]

"You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God" [Mt. 22;29] :)

6,057 posted on 12/28/2010 3:32:18 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6043 | View Replies]

To: metmom; caww
Are you telling us then..

That the Last Supper was the first Eucharist. From the beginning of Christ's Church until today. As a former Catholic, maybe you remember hearing Christ's words during Holy Communion in the Church.

But of course that could not be possible...nor would Christ have endulged in this....He would have been breaking the law.

For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

"This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?"

"Will you also go away?"


6,058 posted on 12/28/2010 3:32:44 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6047 | View Replies]

To: annalex; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change; ...
Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

1 Corinthians 11

For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, "This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died. But if we judged ourselves truly, we would not be judged. But when we are judged by the Lord, we are disciplined so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

Jesus gave BOTH the cup and the bread at the Last Supper and said we were to partake of both.

Paul states that we eat the bread AND drink the cup.

There's simply no where in Scripture that says that partaking of only one element of communion is acceptable or shows the Lord's death. It's BOTH elements.

So, why have the Catholic church for all these centuries taught otherwise? And why does it still do so?

Is tradition trumping Scripture?

Again?

6,059 posted on 12/28/2010 3:36:31 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5431 | View Replies]

To: caww; metmom
"But of course that could not be possible...nor would Christ have endulged in this....He would have been breaking the law."

And of course, as we have been taught by that great theologian Zwingli, God couldn't be in two places at once so that really should put an end to it. It's remarkable that it took Christians 1500 years to figure that out!

6,060 posted on 12/28/2010 3:37:11 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6050 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; annalex; boatbums; RnMomof7; metmom; blue-duncan; Iscool; 1000 silverlings; ...
Luke was a Jew.

Where are you getting that from?

6,061 posted on 12/28/2010 3:38:57 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6053 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"...and no interest in being another dilettante scribbler."

I sincerely doubt, my friend, that anyone here would mistake you for a dilettante scribbler!

"...Gray Beards of Greek (like yourself)"

I was once a veritable Greek God, but now...well...(deep sigh)

6,062 posted on 12/28/2010 3:41:43 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6044 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Do you question that the Disciples could have consumed the true body and blood of Christ before His cruciifixtion because He couldn't exist in more than one form at one time?

No, I question it because the eating of blood is strictly forbidden in Scripture by God and that is one of the few commands reiterated in the Council of Jerusalem to non-Jewish believers.

I question it because in Acts 10 Peter himself said that he had never eaten anything unclean and partaking of blood would have made him unclean for the Passover.

Furthermore, Jesus could not have eaten blood as that would have rendered Him ineligible to be the spotless lamb of God, the perfect sinless sacrifice as eating blood broke the Law, which He never did. He came to fulfill the Law, not to break it. If the cup He partook of was blood, He would have defiled Himself.

Not to mention that He called the cup *the fruit of the vine* in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22.

6,063 posted on 12/28/2010 3:43:26 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6054 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww; stfassisi

Snippet city.


6,064 posted on 12/28/2010 3:44:35 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6057 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; caww

Thanks dear friend,you beat me to the correct Scriptures.

We hope that God answers our prayers for the good of others for sure;)


6,065 posted on 12/28/2010 3:44:40 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6057 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

So, you are saying then that Jesus broke the Law by eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood BEFORE dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins?

How does that work?


6,066 posted on 12/28/2010 3:46:02 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6058 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Are you sure you were Catholic once? Catechized?


6,067 posted on 12/28/2010 3:49:42 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6066 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; annalex; stfassisi; MarkBsnr
"Further, many Catholics believe Vatican II was the work of the Devil."

That I tend to agree with broadly...but it's not really my problem, yet.

6,068 posted on 12/28/2010 3:55:02 PM PST by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6045 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom; annalex; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; caww
Looks like John was quoting Jesus so your confusion should be with his words and not the one who wrote down his words

The words are self-cotradictory. How do you know old "John" wasn't writing from faulty memory, 50-60 years later?

So, when Jesus speaks about being the "bread of life", the "water of life" and his blood the "New Covenant", why is he suddenly speaking of literally drinking him or eating him?

Because he says "For My flesh is true(ly) food, and My blood is true(ly) drink". [Jn. 6:55]

He obviously, to me, is speaking metaphorically and when we believe in him, receive him, trust in him, have faith in him, we are partaking of him and in return we have eternal life

Assuming that's what he said, he is not speaking metaphorically when he says "true(ly)." There is nothing metaphorical about ἀληθῶς whatsoever, bb.

6,069 posted on 12/28/2010 3:55:03 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5888 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; Kolokotronis
Had it not been for Tischendorf those manuscripts would still be left going to rot and ruin in the monastery unavailable to anyone

He "borrowed" them only to sell them to the Russian Czar, only so the non-believing Bolsheviks would sell them to the British. You are giving Tischendorff way too much credit.

6,070 posted on 12/28/2010 4:05:24 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5910 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Are you sure you were Catholic once? Catechized?

Falling back on the old default knee jerk response, eh?

You don't really have a good answer then, do you?

6,071 posted on 12/28/2010 4:13:31 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6067 | View Replies]

To: metmom

I couldn’t believe you didn’t already know the answer. It “work” like this, from the Gospels, Epistles, and the Eucharist:

And he took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you.

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.

And he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them: and they all drank of it. And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Take this, all of you, and eat it:
this is my body which will be given up for you.
Take this, all of you, and drink from it:
this is the cup of my blood,
the blood of the new and everlasting covenant.
It will be shed for you and for many
so that sins may be forgiven.
Do this in memory of me.


6,072 posted on 12/28/2010 4:18:55 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6071 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums; metmom; annalex; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; ...
The words are self-cotradictory. How do you know old "John" wasn't writing from faulty memory, 50-60 years later?

Because he says "For My flesh is true(ly) food, and My blood is true(ly) drink". [Jn. 6:55]

Assuming that's what he said, he is not speaking metaphorically when he says "true(ly)." There is nothing metaphorical about ἀληθῶς whatsoever, bb.

So, let's see if we have this straight here.......

In the first quote, you put the name John in quotes, as if you're not even sure that it was he who wrote the book of John, and then you question whether the memory of someone you seem to be not sure even existed is accurate or not.

In the second quote, you refer to the passage written by someone whose existence and recall you are questioning being taken literally of necessity.

In your third quote, you speculate that someone whose existence and recall you questioned in your first quote was speaking metaphorically or literally.

You are too funny.

Do you also argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

6,073 posted on 12/28/2010 4:25:01 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6069 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Kolokotronis
Well, we can start with Jesus Himself. HE continually referenced Scripture and used it to validate Himself. http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=scripture&version1=47&searchtype=all&bookset=2&limit=bookset

That is most interesting, considering that a learned and observant Jew, such as Jesus,  would have never done that! Rather than the Written Torah, he would have referred to the Oral Torah.  

"Christians are like the heathen in this tractate. They want to accept the Written Torah that was packaged into their Christian Bible, but yet they reject the entire historical context that surrounds it. And we all know that something can’t be understood outside of its context." [Oral Torah]

There are numerous examples why this is so. Of course, the Christian books were written by Christians activists who, in order to promote their own interpretation of the Torah that would be "harmonized" with the New Testament, also promoted the idea that the Oral Torah was a Jewish invention.

Since Christ was or would not have been a Sadducee, he would have accepted the Oral Torah, lake the rest, rather than appeal to the Written Torah or the writings (scriptures) to "validate" himself. In other words, the Gospels and the NT were written for a specific consumption, mostly Greeks and Romans, who knew little or nothing of Judaism.

6,074 posted on 12/28/2010 4:31:29 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5921 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
So, you are saying then that Jesus broke the Law by eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood BEFORE dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins?

A simple *yes* or *no* will do.

6,075 posted on 12/28/2010 4:33:11 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6072 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“How does that work?” requires more than yes or no.

And your question seems more rhetorical than interrogatory. A statement requiring no answer would serve the same purpose.


6,076 posted on 12/28/2010 4:37:03 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6075 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

In post 6,075 I reposted the question which needed a simple yes or no.

Why are you not responding to what I asked and instead responding to the one I didn’t mention?

I’ll try again and give you another chance.

This requires only a yes or no.

Here goes......

“So, you are saying then that Jesus broke the Law by eating His own flesh and drinking His own blood BEFORE dying on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins?”

Then we can address the second question which is not going to be so easy to answer.


6,077 posted on 12/28/2010 4:41:44 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6076 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; annalex; RnMomof7; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee
In the first quote, you put the name John in quotes, as if you're not even sure that it was he who wrote the book of John

The "Book" (Gospel) of John is a heavily interpolated book suggesting more than one author.

and then you question whether the memory of someone you seem to be not sure even existed is accurate or not.

The author(s) obviously existed because human being(s) wrote the "Book of John" as you call it. Questioning the accuracy of their memory (if they were even writing from memory!) after 50-60 years after the event is perfectly legitimate for two reasons: (1) human memory has been shown to be notoriously inaccurate and (2) ancient writers would "quote" an individual as the author imagined a person would have spoken, and not necessarily as a verbatim quote.

In the second quote, you refer to the passage written by someone whose existence and recall you are questioning being taken literally of necessity.

I never said the author(s) didn't exist. I use "John" in quotes because there is evidence of more than one author, just as is the case with Isaiah, and Moses, etc.

In your third quote, you speculate that someone whose existence and recall you questioned in your first quote was speaking metaphorically or literally.

I was simply pointing to boatbums, who believes that "John's" Gospel is an accurate recollection of Jesus' own words, that the word αληθως (truly, or true) would not be understood metaphorically.

You are too funny.

No, I think you are. :)

6,078 posted on 12/28/2010 4:48:11 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6073 | View Replies]

To: metmom; caww; stfassisi
Snippet city.

Taste your own medicine.

6,079 posted on 12/28/2010 4:52:46 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6064 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

I love Fr. Schmemann’s public statement after Vatican II (as you know he was an invited observer representing the Orthodox). Paraphrasing: “I’d like to take this opportunity to thank the Coeternal Trinity that I am NOT a Roman Catholic.”


6,080 posted on 12/28/2010 4:55:05 PM PST by Yudan (Living comes much easier once we admit we're dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6068 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Kolokotronis
But which one? The Short, the Mid, or the Long Recension [of the letter to the Smyrneans]? They can't all be authentic can they?

Which recension of the Luke's Gospel do you take to be authentic, the long or the short one?

6,081 posted on 12/28/2010 4:57:39 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6046 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; stfassisi; boatbums
How many times do you believe the words of Jesus were misunderstood, even by the Apostles?

How many times did you consider that perhaps he never uttered those words?

The Germans assumed no one could ever break their Enigma Code. But they never considered the possibility that someone might steal it! Think outside the box.

6,082 posted on 12/28/2010 5:03:25 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6049 | View Replies]

To: metmom

No, I’m saying Christ instituted the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, first, at the Last Supper.

If you are charging cannibalism, just say so, the persecutors of the early Christians were not shy about it.


6,083 posted on 12/28/2010 5:05:47 PM PST by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6077 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; boatbums; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; OLD REGGIE; maryz
[bb] For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. (Matt. 11:29-30) He was exaggerating? Lying? Minimizing? What?”

[sfa]Truly denying ourselves is NOT any easy thing to do

1 Peter speaks of and urges believers to share the suffering of Christ. If it is an easy "yoke" why call it suffering? When Christ yelled "Why have you forsaken me?" it doesn't sound like joy! Why did Jesus ask the Father to, if possible, take away the cup? But then Mt. 11:29-30 says His is an easy yoke and his suffering light...More contradictions.

6,084 posted on 12/28/2010 5:23:39 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5956 | View Replies]

To: RnMomof7; boatbums
Annalex: You cannot say that you believe in Jesus Christ unless you believe in everything the Jesus Christ said.

RnMomof7: Everything? In context? [cites much scripture in colors]

And your point is? Yes, I, as Catholic, believe everything you quoted in context. I also believe what you don't quote. I am Catholioc, I believe the Holy Scripture. Only heretics don't.

6,085 posted on 12/28/2010 5:25:39 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5485 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww
Why isn’t Peter still alive then and the rest of the apostles who partook of the Last Supper with Jesus?

They are alive.

6,086 posted on 12/28/2010 5:27:25 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5494 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
My only point being that if our understanding of God has undergone revision...

That does not agree with the patristic saying that faith is once delivered and believed everywhere and always.

that does not necessarily invalidate that understanding

It doesn't validate it either. Christianity went from being a Jewish sectarian religion to being an amalgam of a specific flavor of Judaism, Greek Pagan philosophy (Plaotnism, Stoicism, etc.), and Persian (Zoroastrian) dualism. We can say that Christianity gradually (and consensually) evolved, especially in the West, without necessairly being either valid or invalid.

It is possible that we simply understand God better (not completely, of course not, but better than the fishermen and salesmen 2000 years ago).

It's possible, but doesn't seem probable.

The fact that the Church harmonized Scripture to the extent that it has does not invalidate it. It may mean that it has been nudged towards better description than formerly.

Too much deliberate change was required to call it mere harmonization, Mark. That's why I always put "harmonize" in quotes.

As for human understanding of God, how can finite even begin to encompass the infinite? Why, if God is infinite, then the combined understanding of all humanity that ever lived, lives and will live amounts to nothing compared to what God truly is.

6,087 posted on 12/28/2010 5:42:12 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5934 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; OLD REGGIE; maryz
More contradictions.

Not really. I believe our Lord gives us the free will to handle and take on trials and when the trial is too heavy for us, all we need to do is ask Him for help and He will carry our burdens so we don't fall into despair.

6,088 posted on 12/28/2010 5:51:36 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6084 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi; boatbums; Kolokotronis; MarkBsnr; metmom; OLD REGGIE; maryz
I believe our Lord gives us the free will to handle and take on trials and when the trial is too heavy for us, all we need to do is ask Him for help and He will carry our burdens so we don't fall into despair.

Thank you sfa. You said "I believe" and that I accept and respect.

6,089 posted on 12/28/2010 5:55:18 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6088 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; metmom
So what is “the historical witness” of the Catholic Church?

Primarily, it is the writings of the Fathers, a good collection of which is www.newadvent.org/fathers. Together, they clarify the belief system that Jesus gave the Church.

6,090 posted on 12/28/2010 5:57:11 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5496 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
You may mean the NAB...

Yes. Thank you.

6,091 posted on 12/28/2010 5:58:08 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5935 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

“”Thank you sfa. You said “I believe” and that I accept and respect.””

“Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.”Heb 11:1

The solo Scripture crowd seems to not understand that faith is hope in what we believe and is not always a fact.


6,092 posted on 12/28/2010 6:13:14 PM PST by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6089 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; metmom
What does "believing in the name of Jesus" mean? I say, based on the complete Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that belief is relying upon, trusting in, having confidence in, to throw myself upon him, to have FAITH in him

Well, the Protestants don't have the complete Bible and they do not read what they do have in the light of the patristic tradition, so on that score your faith is not complete. Most strikingly, you don't believe in the words of the Holy Scripture that tell you that good works are necessary for salvation alongside faith, and that you are not saved by faith alone. So your faith, although it retains some Christian principles, is defective.

You state "[salvation] is by grace through faith and good works". A person, in your example, must have faith but must also perform good deeds and refrain from sin. You also say that good works can be canceled out by sin such as committing a "mortal sin" and not following the prescribed remedy which is repentance, confession and due penance. Also the "good works" you say are required include many acts, beliefs and states of mind which include complete obedience to the "Church" and her proclaimed dogmas and doctrines. In this way of thinking, sin can actually cancel out the grace of God and whatever faith we placed in it in addition to any good deeds we may have done before we died

Good summary.

my belief is that God, through his grace, has provided the payment for all our sins

The Redemption obtained by Jesus on the Cross is alone sufficient to all sins past present and future. That part is true.

All our own righteousnesses are as "filthy rags" compared to his own for us, so from that I realize that my good deeds, my good works as somehow being held at the same level or the same worth as what Christ has done for us is purely illogical. To hold that grace through faith is not enough if it doesn't also include our efforts negates the whole meaning of grace

No one says your good works are on the "same level" as the salvific work of Christ. Neither does the New Testament call anyone "filthy rags", -- basing your misanthropy on that is a result of uncritical and un-Christian Old Testament literalism, against which Jesus advised (Mt 5:21-22, for example). However, the scripture does say that your good works are necessary for your salvation (Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:6-10, many direct appeals to do good and avoid evil). So if you believe in Christ, do what He tells you: strive for perfection (Matthew 5:48), forgive others (Matthew 6:14), do works of kindness (Matthew 5-7) do penance (Acts 2:38). The smug concept that because Christ's grace is sufficient nothing is required of you is foreign to the gospel. "Why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46). "[I] rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church" (Col. 1:24).

Nothing will ever separate me from him

Nothing except you yourself through your own deeds or lack of them.

One says he has faith but he also tries his best to follow all the rules out of fear that he may lose Heaven. The other has faith and follows the rules out of gratitude and love because she knows she is held in his hands where he will never lose her, he will never cast her out

It is better to obey the gospel out of fear of losing one's salvation than not obey it at all. It is even better to obey the Gospel out of love for your Savior. One thing does not exclude the other. A Catholic Christian starts with the former and proceeds to the latter. The once-saved-always-saved are not even on that road; they, thanks to the Protestant charlatans that teach them convinced themselves to stay on the sidelines

6,093 posted on 12/28/2010 6:21:42 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5497 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi
The solo Scripture crowd seems to not understand that faith is hope in what we believe and is not always a fact

They seem to believe otherwise, sfa.

6,094 posted on 12/28/2010 6:29:37 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6092 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; metmom; Belteshazzar; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums
while i uphold that it is faith alone that saves, i do not hold that it is a faith that is alone, nor did classic Protestantism, but that faith that has no holiness and works is not salvific.

That is a contradictory statement. You think that faith alone saves but you also understand that faith nmust have "holiness and works". So say what you mean: faith must be accompanied by holiness and good works in order to be a saving faith.

I do not have any objection to the rest of your post. I agree that one who made the initial decision for Christ will be guided toward greater holiness and greater maturity of faith. But he must avoid the Protestant heresy of "faith alone" which entraps him in smug satisfaction of being "saved already" and deprives him of sanctity that could be his.

6,095 posted on 12/28/2010 6:30:03 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5498 | View Replies]

To: Belteshazzar
you purposely avoid engagement on the point at issue

Which issue is that? If it seems to you that I did not adreess some issue, please indicate so and I'll try to do better.

6,096 posted on 12/28/2010 6:32:30 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5499 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Can you then name one teaching of Christ that was so “clarified”? and how?


6,097 posted on 12/28/2010 6:35:22 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6090 | View Replies]

To: metmom; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; presently no screen name; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings
the person who recognizes that other possible interpretations can be legitimate CANNOT, because they have no basis for it, claim that theirs is the only right one

Sure I can, because it is a knowledge possessed by the Church, which is not expressed in the scripture.

6,098 posted on 12/28/2010 6:37:41 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5519 | View Replies]

To: metmom; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; presently no screen name; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings

Same as before, Matthew 1:18, 25 MAY be interpreted your way but just as easily they simply mean what they say, that Mary was pregnant before she got married and not by Joseph.


6,099 posted on 12/28/2010 6:39:53 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5520 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change; boatbums
The Mary of Mark 15:40 is the wife of Clopas, (a.k.a. Alphaeus) not Mary, wife of Joseph

Yes, exactly. That was my point.

6,100 posted on 12/28/2010 6:41:40 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5521 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,001-6,0506,051-6,1006,101-6,150 ... 7,351-7,356 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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