Skip to comments.Oh, we are in deep, deep trouble
Posted on 03/16/2013 7:33:00 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The consecration of the Host happens at 51:47. The consecration of the Chalice happens at 52:32.
I cannot believe I am about to type these words.
The Pope DID NOT GENUFLECT after either consecration. He did a weird bow thing, but didn't feel the need to bend his knee to God Almighty, physically present in his hands upon the altar.
HE. DID. NOT. GENUFLECT.
This is absolutely stunning. And unprecedented.
Oh yeah, we're in deep, deep trouble.
But hey, all of you guys who are sending me emails whining about how I'm not nice, or something, go ahead and explain this one. He is perfectly physically sound. He FREELY CHOOSES to not reverence Our Lord in the Eucharist upon the altar.
Oh, and he also didn't genuflect to Our Lord in the Tabernacle when he went to Santa Maria Maggiore on Thursday morning, either. Um, how can a man truly love Our Lady if he doesn't first show even the slightest respect to her Son? Someone please explain that one to me.
Hey! I have an idea! Let's do a Pope watch. First one to see the Pope genuflect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, and not to a Superfun Rockband church pastor, wins! In the mean time, everyone should pray for Pope Francis and that he learns to show Our Lord the tiniest bit of respect and GENUFLECT to Him after He comes down onto the altar, and whenever he approaches or crosses the plane of a Tabernacle in which Our Lord is physically present. I think that would be a great prayer intention for one and all.
I never occurred to me that my desire to do penance in reparation to Our Lord for the sacrileges of the world would include the consecration rubrics of THE POPE.
Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.
“Grace is received through baptism, for instance. Thus, salvation is through grace alone. What will save you, grace or faith? I will be saved by grace alone. Some of that grace I will have received through baptism, but I will still be saved by grace alone.”
At no time is baptism linked with grace in the scripture. In fact, the concept itself negates what “grace” even is. It is not an inanimate object. It is not something one “achieves” through a certain act of obedience. God’s grace is bestowed on man by God directly, who, through His own sovereign right, has grace on whom He will and judges whom He will. It is a free choice of God.
The Apostle Paul does not attain grace by being baptized. He is called by God’s grace:
Gal_1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace,
It is a power wrought by God, outside of human activity.
Eph_3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
It is God’s sovereign grace by which a man is chosen by God, is called, has His eyes opened, confesses Christ, is justified, sanctified, and glorified.
Eph 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Rom 8:29-30 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
The scripture from Romans is interesting, because it makes it clear that God calls, God justifies, God glorifies. It is not God calls, Man answers, Man with God justifies, and God, as a reward to man, justifies man.
It is the work of God, from start to finish. The Father draws, and those whom He draws come to God inevitably.
Joh_6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
No man who belongs to Christ will refuse to come:
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
No Christian can be plucked from the hand of God:
Joh 10:27-30 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: (28) And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. (29) My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. (30) I and my Father are one.
This is necessary, because man is corrupt, and in his natural state cannot seek after God.
Rom 3:9-18 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; (10) As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (11) There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. (12) They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (13) Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: (14) Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: (15) Their feet are swift to shed blood: (16) Destruction and misery are in their ways: (17) And the way of peace have they not known: (18) There is no fear of God before their eyes.
No man, therefore, can confess Jesus Christ without the power of the Holy Ghost.
1Co_12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Is God unjust for snatching His own peculiar people from the fires, and not for all humanity? Nay, who are you to reply against God?
Rom 9:14-16 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. (15) For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (16) So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
Rom 9:20-25 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? (21) Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? (22) What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: (23) And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, (24) Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (25) As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
To summarize, the Catholic view is totally alien to the scriptures, and without fail makes materialistic and fleshy that which God called spirit.
“It only matters that you were wrong, again. “
Your quotes proved nothing at all, except maybe your inability to defend your own theology.
There is nothing wrong with my summation of the scriptures. It is only you, clinging to Roman theology, that forces you to say these things instead of refuting my argument from the scripture.
“No, not once. Yes, Peter was challenged and rebuked by Paul - as he should have been - “
This is what you said. And then, right after, you pretended that the Apostles “held their tongue” in the presence of Peter.
It was James who pronounced the sentence of the judgment, which the church accepted:
Act 15:19-20 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
So who is holding their tongue for Pope Peter? It was not Paul, it was not James.
“But we know that there was one. We already have the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, for instance. Ignatius would not be interested in endangering the life of the pope by mentioning him by name.”
That’s ridiculous. If an institution like the Papacy existed, he would refer to it as naturally as he referred to all the Bishops and the hierarchy of the church. Are they expendable but your mysterious Pope, whom you claim always existed, is conveniently left out? Are all the faithful named in those epistles just fodder? Instead, it ends with the Bishop, and goes no further.
In Clement, the organization is also explained, with no reference to any Pope:
1 Clem. 44:1 And our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office.
1 Clem. 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the consent of the whole Church, and have ministered unblamably to the flock of Christ in lowliness of mind, peacefully and with all modesty, and for long time have borne a good report with all these men we consider to be unjustly thrust out from their ministration.
1 Clem. 44:3 For it will be no light sin for us, if we thrust out those who have offered the gifts of the bishop’s office unblamably and holily.
The Bishops themselves were appointed not by a Pope, but by the church at large. Presumably, using the same requirements as Paul, a Bishop must be a husband to but one wife, and so forth.
Furthermore, in 1 Clement, the only reference to Peter is alongside Paul, as fellow martyrs.
No “Our Pope!” or “First of the Apostles” or “The Bishop of Bishops!”
But you want us to believe that the failure to speak of any authority higher than a Bishop, besides God, was denied on purpose to protect the Pope’s life? And so when Ignatius says the head of the Bishop is God, he strategically left out the Pope?
I’m sorry, but it’s too silly a notion for me to fall into.
“Again, the pope is a bishop.”
Really? Let’s see:
882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peters successor, is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.402 For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.403
883 The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peters successor, as its head. As such, this college has supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.404
884 The college of bishops exercises power over the universal Church in a solemn manner in an ecumenical council.405 But there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peters successor.406
This makes Acts 15, with James presiding over the “ecumenical council” and declaring his decision, quite interesting to behold. It certainly makes it ridiculous to believe that neither Ignatius nor Clement would mention the office of the papacy.
On the other hand, they do affirm the existence of Bishops appointed by the Apostles, which agrees totally with the Biblical practice.
“No, my argument is that the context shows you were taking it out of context.”
Nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about. It clearly says that the throne of Peter is presided over by three Bishops. It says nothing else. Please provide what so called “context” denies that truth?
As expected you’re digging your hole deeper.
“At no time is baptism linked with grace in the scripture.”
St. Luke, writing in Acts on the testimony of St. Paul, connects baptism with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16; also see Acts 2:38). St. Peter directly links baptism and salvation (1 Peter 3:21). How can someone get his sins forgiven or be saved without grace? He can’t. Baptism gives grace.
“In fact, the concept itself negates what grace even is.”
No, it doesn’t.
“It is not an inanimate object. It is not something one achieves through a certain act of obedience. Gods grace is bestowed on man by God directly, who, through His own sovereign right, has grace on whom He will and judges whom He will. It is a free choice of God.”
It is a free choice of God and He freely chooses to give it through baptism.
“To summarize, the Catholic view is totally alien to the scriptures, and without fail makes materialistic and fleshy that which God called spirit.”
Absolutely false. Jesus took on flesh. He still redeemed us and He did it through the death of Himself. Is that too materialistic for you? Didn’t Jesus rise REALLY from the dead with holes in His side and hands and feet? Is that too materialistic for you?
“Your quotes proved nothing at all, except maybe your inability to defend your own theology.”
No, my quotes prove you were taking things out of context to say the least.
“There is nothing wrong with my summation of the scriptures.”
There is something wrong with your interpretation.
“It is only you, clinging to Roman theology, that forces you to say these things instead of refuting my argument from the scripture.”
Nothing is compelling me to say anything except perhaps my love of Truth. You presented no argument from scripture. All you did was post several verses, no argument. Also, your view is a novel one that didn’t exist before the heresy of Protestantism. You’re doomed to fail from the start.
“Thats ridiculous. If an institution like the Papacy existed, he would refer to it as naturally as he referred to all the Bishops and the hierarchy of the church.”
So say you. But your opinion is meaningless.
“In Clement, the organization is also explained, with no reference to any Pope:”
Gee, I’m glad you now know there was a Clement of Rome, bishop of Rome. What you think of his letter is unimportant.
Then there’s this gem from you:
[When contesting that the pope is a bishop you wrote]
“Really? Lets see:”
And then you quote
“882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peters successor...”
Whoa! Right there - “Bishop of Rome”. Case closed.
“This makes Acts 15, with James presiding over the ecumenical council and declaring his decision, quite interesting to behold. It certainly makes it ridiculous to believe that neither Ignatius nor Clement would mention the office of the papacy.”
Actually, no it isn’t. And Peter made the decision at Jerusalem.”
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them. . . 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.”
Peter made the decision. Everyone kept their silence.
“On the other hand, they do affirm the existence of Bishops appointed by the Apostles, which agrees totally with the Biblical practice.”
And yet you have no bishops appointed by the Apostles or any bishop sent by them or their successors. We do.
“Nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about.”
Actually I know exactly what I am talking about.
“It clearly says that the throne of Peter is presided over by three Bishops. It says nothing else. Please provide what so called context denies that truth?”
It’s right there.
Here. Read part of Theodoret’s letter to Pope Leo.
From Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, to Leo. (See vol. iii. of this Series, p. 293.)
To Leo, bishop of Rome.
I. If Paul appealed to Peter how much more must ordinary folk have recourse to his successor.
If Paul, the herald of the Truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, had recourse to the great Peter, in order to obtain a decision from him for those at Antioch who were disputing about living by the Law, much more do we small and humble folk run to the Apostolic See to get healing from you for the sores of the churches. For it is fitting that you should in all things have the pre-eminence, seeing that your See possesses many peculiar privileges. For other cities get a name for size or beauty or population, and some that are devoid of these advantages are compensated by certain spiritual gifts: but your city has the fullest p. 56 abundance of good things from the Giver of all good. For she is of all cities the greatest and most famous, the mistress of the world and teeming with population. And besides this she has created an empire which is still predominant and has imposed her own name upon her subjects. But her chief decoration is her Faith, to which the Divine Apostle is a sure witness when he exclaims your faith is proclaimed in all the world 375 ; and if immediately after receiving the seeds of the saving Gospel she bore such a weight of wondrous fruit, what words are sufficient to express the piety which is now found in her? She has, too, the tombs of our common fathers and teachers of the Truth, Peter and Paul 376 , to illumine the souls of the faithful. And this blessed and divine pair arose indeed in the East, and shed its rays in all directions, but voluntarily underwent the sunset of life in the West, from whence now it illumines the whole world. These have rendered your See so glorious: this is the chief of all your goods. And their See is still blest by the light of their Gods presence, seeing that therein He has placed your Holiness to shed abroad the rays of the one true Faith.
“St. Luke, writing in Acts on the testimony of St. Paul, connects baptism with the forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16; also see Acts 2:38). St. Peter directly links baptism and salvation (1 Peter 3:21). How can someone get his sins forgiven or be saved without grace? He cant. Baptism gives grace.”
You dig your unscriptural hole digger.
The scripture cannot be broken, and therefore, grace is a free gift by God, and cannot be a baptism which is given by men. Baptism does not cause forgiveness of sins, but is only a sign of a spiritual baptism by the Holy Ghost.
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
The Jews, similarly, practiced baptism to represent life changes, and not, of itself, a saving act. It was necessary for converts to be immersed in water. The Christian, therefore, is baptized to show physically a spiritual reality that occurs by the power of God.
Paul, as well, calls the Old Testament washings and Jewish practices symbolic:
Heb 9:8-10 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: (9) Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (10) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
For example, Cornelius and his family, before they were baptized in water, were filled and baptized by the Holy Ghost, a result that can only mean salvation of their souls.
Act 10:44-48 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? (48) And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
The same is also true for the Thief on the cross, who went to paradise that very day with Jesus, cleansed of all his sin without the working of baptism.
“No, it doesnt.”
Roman debate at its finest. Dozens of scriptures proving it, and the guy replies “No it doesn’t.” Please post your evidence and do some scripture exegesis.
“What you think of his letter is unimportant.”
Apparently, the content of his letter is unimportant to you as well.
“Whoa! Right there - Bishop of Rome. Case closed.”
No, not really. You can be disingenuous about it, but we both know the “Universal Pastor,” with supreme power over the church, whom binds the Bishops together, is not someone or an office you would ignore.
But, if you believe it, and you have to, I suppose I have a bridge to sell you.
“Actually, no it isnt. And Peter made the decision at Jerusalem.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them. . . 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Peter made the decision. Everyone kept their silence.”
What an atrocious twisting of the scripture. After these verses, James is the one who makes the decision on this matter. There is no debate on this.
Act 15:13-22 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: (14) Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. (15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (16) After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (18) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. (22) Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
This is the exact opposition position of the one Peter presented earlier in verse 11, which you omitted:
Act 15:10-11 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
James specifically says, “My SENTENCE is...” and gives his decision on the matter.
How you manage to make Peter, who speaks first, allegedly to have the last word, instead of James, who spoke last and with authority, who in turn decided to forbid the practice of eating things sacrificed, which Peter opposed, is beyond me.
“Here. Read part of Theodorets letter to Pope Leo.”
Still refusing to acknowledge that the “Throne of Peter,” according to Theodoret and Gregory, was possessed by three Bishops.
It doesn’t matter how much you repeat the same lame argument if you refuse to acknowledge what they clearly said on the matter.
“You dig your unscriptural hole digger.”
“The Jews, similarly, practiced baptism to represent life changes, and not, of itself, a saving act.”
Christian baptism is different than anything before it - and Peter made it clear what happens through baptism.
“The same is also true for the Thief on the cross, who went to paradise that very day with Jesus, cleansed of all his sin without the working of baptism.”
1) If Paradise is Heaven - which is what you probably believe - then how is it that Jesus preached to the prisoners in the Prison of the Patriarchs? That isn’t heaven either.
2) Some men will be saved without baptism - such as those who lived before baptism existed. That doesn’t negate baptism in itself.
“Roman debate at its finest. Dozens of scriptures proving it, and the guy replies No it doesnt. Please post your evidence and do some scripture exegesis.”
When you actually deal with the verses I posted I might do more. Until then I don’t see the need.
“No, not really. You can be disingenuous about it, but we both know the Universal Pastor, with supreme power over the church, whom binds the Bishops together, is not someone or an office you would ignore.”
Don’t claim to know what I think. That is a type of “making it personal” and the mods don’t like that. Also, you’re wrong about what I think. Man, you’re not doing well.
“What an atrocious twisting of the scripture. After these verses, James is the one who makes the decision on this matter. There is no debate on this.”
Really? Says who that there is no debate on this? I have seen debates on this so I’m wondering who you’re citing.
“Still refusing to acknowledge that the Throne of Peter, according to Theodoret and Gregory, was possessed by three Bishops.”
You’re still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret had views that go against yours.
“It doesnt matter how much you repeat the same lame argument if you refuse to acknowledge what they clearly said on the matter.”
At the very least that would have to apply to you in any case.
“Christian baptism is different than anything before it - and Peter made it clear what happens through baptism.”
Based on what? Your assertion? Why should we divorce the practice of baptism as performed by the Jews? Especially when it is clear that it is a spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit which is superior? But yet, you would have us divorce it from the practice of the Jews, only to make it even more carnal than the Jews, as if spiritual regeneration can be accomplished through a physical act.
You assert alot. You try to prove very little.
“1) If Paradise is Heaven - which is what you probably believe - then how is it that Jesus preached to the prisoners in the Prison of the Patriarchs? That isnt heaven either.”
You are denying that the Thief was saved? If he did not go to hell, then his progress must be to heaven, whether he went with Jesus to an allegedly separate paradise and then to heaven is irrelevant. You also dodge Cornelius and his family who were baptized by the Spirit before the baptism by water, and then, without bothering to reconcile it, you make more baseless assertions.
As for the scripture you are referring to, while it doesn’t prove your point either way, and is therefore utterly irrelevant, I will add that it is not settled that Jesus preached to the dead, and it does not reference the patriarchs, but rather the antedeluvians.
1Pe 3:18-20 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; (20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
He says he went to speak to the spirits in prison, but it can either be read “when they were spirits,” or it can be read as referring to the past, “He went to preach to those who now are spirits,” which occurred during the times of Noah, as immediately referenced.
“When you actually deal with the verses I posted I might do more. Until then I dont see the need.”
I did, and more. But if you cannot debate using the scripture, it is more to my benefit. My argument stands unmolested by any serious response.
“Man, youre not doing well.”
I know when the other side is not doing well when they stop responding with even the semblance of argument and start asserting that I am not doing well.
When you can explain how the Universal Pasotr, possessor of supreme power, the vicar of Christ by whom all authority presides, is “just another Bishop not worthy of mentioning as separate”, then you can belittle me.
Until then, dream on.
“Really? Says who that there is no debate on this?”
Says you, who evidently stopped debating it in favor of writing this useless sentence.
“Youre still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret had views that go against yours.”
You’re still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret believed more than one person represented Peter. You refuse to even discuss it. IOW, you can’t.
If all you have are assertions and dodges and half-arguments, I’ll not keep responding.
Well I was of a mind to respond and try to help you our based on my own experience, strength and and faith, but I can see by your responses to me and other Freepers here that you do not really care about anyone’s views but your own.
I can also tell by your tone that you appear as one of the anti-Catholic agitators who show up here from time to time, and you are mostly just looking to pick a fight rather than really help anyone out or for that matter even share anything worthwhile.
May God bless you with wisdom and tolerance and understanding, and empathy. Unfortunately, based on your few abrasive postings, you offer nothing to me in terms of spiritual growth and understanding, so this is the last response you will have from me on FR. Have a lovely day, FRiend, and welcome to Free Republic. I hope you have learned something since Feb 23, 2013, and continue to grow in faith and understanding, especially understanding of those who might have a different perspective on the Bible and religion than you do. You might hear good things in this place if you listen. Many wonderful people have helped me and prayed with me through some life threatening situations during my time here. I do not pretend to have it all figured out, but I do have a deep and abiding faith and it works for me just fine. I do not need your agitation. Regards,
“Well I was of a mind to respond and try to help you our based on my own experience, strength and and faith, but I can see by your responses to me and other Freepers here that you do not really care about anyones views but your own.”
Just because I didn’t understand the point about a long winded comment about Isaiah and how it applies to Mary, the Mediatrix, and other Catholic doctrines?
Debate me straightly, or else, why bother insulting me? Half of you make strange, irrelevant arguments, and then lecture me like I’m the bad guy because I didn’t agree with your post.
Then you even spend three paragraphs telling me how much you don’t want to talk to me. LOL.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
“Based on what? Your assertion?”
Does anyone doubt that Christian baptism is different than Jewish baptism?
“Why should we divorce the practice of baptism as performed by the Jews?”
No divorce, just graduation. Christian baptism is from Christ. It is the fulfillment of what came before it. It is greater than what came before it.
“Especially when it is clear that it is a spiritual regeneration of the Holy Spirit which is superior?”
And taht happens through baptism - hence the forgiveness of sins and salvation as said by Luke and Peter.
“But yet, you would have us divorce it from the practice of the Jews, only to make it even more carnal than the Jews, as if spiritual regeneration can be accomplished through a physical act.”
It’s no more carnal than Christ who took on flesh to accomplish a spiritual mission.
“You assert alot. You try to prove very little.”
Sometimes no amount of proof will work because some are so lost in darkness and bigotry that they can’t understand even the smallest of things.
“You are denying that the Thief was saved?”
Nope. I am merely pointing out the truth: not all men who are saved are saved with baptism but baptism’s grace still saves, and Paradise is not necessarily Heaven as scripture scholars have long recognized. When Jesus died He went to Paradise (Luke 23:43). But He told Mary “I am not yet ascended unto the Father” (John 20:17). Only after His resurrection did Jesus ascend to the Father (Acts 2:32-33). So the dwelling place of the Father sure doesn’t sound like Paradise. Could Paradise be a lower level of Heaven? If so, then how could Jesus have been in the Prison of the Patriarchs and in Paradise (Heaven) with the St, Dismas (the Good Thief)? Didn’t you ever notice that before?
“If he did not go to hell, then his progress must be to heaven, whether he went with Jesus to an allegedly separate paradise and then to heaven is irrelevant.”
Don’t you know the scriptures? He went to the Prison of the Patriarchs (1 Peter 3:19). Don’t you know this?
“You also dodge Cornelius and his family who were baptized by the Spirit before the baptism by water, and then, without bothering to reconcile it, you make more baseless assertions.”
No, I didn’t dodge anything. I have no doubt the Cornelius recieved gifts of faith from the Holy Spirit. I also have no doubt that they were baptism since that was the common practice. The gifts before baptism do not negate the gifts of baptism.
“As for the scripture you are referring to, while it doesnt prove your point either way, and is therefore utterly irrelevant, I will add that it is not settled that Jesus preached to the dead, and it does not reference the patriarchs, but rather the antedeluvians.”
It’s called the Prison of the Patriarchs. That’s its name.
“When you can explain how the Universal Pasotr, possessor of supreme power, the vicar of Christ by whom all authority presides, is just another Bishop not worthy of mentioning as separate, then you can belittle me.”
No, I’ll choose to “belittle” (i.e. tell the truth you don’t like) all the time.
“Says you, who evidently stopped debating it in favor of writing this useless sentence.”
The point is that you were wrong - there’s plenty of debate on it.
“Youre still refusing to acknowledge that Theodoret believed more than one person represented Peter. You refuse to even discuss it. IOW, you cant.”
No, it just doesn’t mean what you seem to be lending to it. Don’t all bishops in some sense represent Peter? And yet Peter was different and His last see is different and always has been.
“If all you have are assertions and dodges and half-arguments, Ill not keep responding.”
Great. Walk away.
“And taht happens through baptism - hence the forgiveness of sins and salvation as said by Luke and Peter.”
It is self-evident that if forgiveness and salvation came from baptism, that the person, filled with the Holy Spirit, would be a Christian who grows ever closer to God.
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
He who is filled with the Holy Spirit has been regenerated, and is no longer the dead man he was before.
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. 10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
Furthermore, since we know that it is God who saves, and who predestinates a man to salvation, the work if God’s work alone, who, having chosen us, also justifies us and glorifies us.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
So then, if Baptism forces God’s hand to make this individual one of the “elect,” and moves God to send to him the Holy Spirit who regenerates and washes him, it would stand to follow that all those baptized would live regenerated lives, growing ever more faithful and sanctified.
And yet, every Catholic child is baptized, and more than half in America do not even practice Catholicism, nor are they saved in any way, but are twice as much the sons of the devil as the generation before. For those who are regenerate, their faith is such that it is towards the working of good deeds. But the unregenerate do not seek God, but instead embrace carnality and shallow visions of righteousness.
You do not know the difference between the regenerate and the unregenerate.
“Its no more carnal than Christ who took on flesh to accomplish a spiritual mission.”
And yet, it was a spiritual mission, for God is spirit, and those who worship Him must do so in Spirit and in Truth, and not through the same carnal methods of the Jews, who could not save themselves no matter how hard they washed, for salvation is by grace, through faith, and not by any works of the law.
“Sometimes no amount of proof will work because some are so lost in darkness and bigotry that they cant understand even the smallest of things.”
So I’m the bigoted one, because you ignore a dozen scripture quotes saying quite clearly that we are saved by grace, and grace is the free gift of God, unmoved by man, and guaranteed to those whom He elects?
“Nope. I am merely pointing out the truth: not all men who are saved are saved with baptism but baptisms grace still saves,”
If “nope,” you have no point, and are wasting my time with an argument I did not ask for. But if the thief is saved not by baptism, then you regard that he was saved by grace, and not by any actual working of the law.
So then, you also do not believe your own interpretation, which says that one must believe and be baptized to be saved. If there are those who are saved before baptism, then it stands to follow that spiritual regeneration is not impaired or controlled by any physical act. And we know this much simply from observation, since baptism does not make a man better, but only if he had already made a committment, and thus sealed with the sign of water what God has already wrought with fire and spirit.
“Didnt you ever notice that before?”
Why should I notice something not in the scripture? Supposing your obtuse reading was correct, it makes no mention of patriarchs, but only antediluvians. It doesn’t matter how much you spam that it is patriarchs. Patriarchs aren’t antediluvians.
“The gifts before baptism do not negate the gifts of baptism.”
Sure they do, especially when the gift you say comes by water baptism is already given before water baptism. For Cornelius, why be baptized by water for the purpose of receiving what he already has gotten? But if to be baptized to show communion with Christian peoples, it is more than worthwhile.
“The point is that you were wrong - theres plenty of debate on it.”
Except that you are not debating it. Therefore, paucas pallabris, let the world pass by, Sessa!
“Dont all bishops in some sense represent Peter?”
It does not say that they “in some sense” represent Peter. It says that the See of Peter is governed by three Bishops who all rule with divine authority, sitting in his seat, and therefore represent Peter in totality and not in “some sense.”
A demon for a pope? It’s self righteous, judgmental people like you that drove me out of the church years ago. I’m smarter and wiser, now.
I praise God for a new pope, and ask Him to bless our pope emeritus.
I disagree, but I am tired of debating Pope Francis. I will let this be.
Actually, bosses tend to be quite harsh personalities, that are focused on the end result, and not on making their employees happy.
People have studied this, and people get promoted are tougher towards others than those who do not get promoted.
Anyway, I have spent too much time debating this. I will let you go. I need to do other things with my time.
I bow before the tabernacle. I could probably genuflect, but not without taking the chance of falling due to an old knee injury years ago. There is no point in making a spectacle of myself when bowing shows respect, as well.
(On an off note, Jesus was a Pharisee. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been a rabbi, as he was referred to again and again. Pharisaism evolved to modern Judaism.)
What part of “in Christ”don’t you get?
Those who die “in Christ” remain in Him. We see them around the Throne praising Him. If it is sorcery to ask them, in Christ, to join in prayer for our needs and concerns, then it was sorcery for the seer of the Book of Revelation to talk to them.
Your prooftexting from the sorcery prohibition of 1 Samuel is laughable exegesis.
If it's "laughable" then I guess you'll be able to show me dozens of scriptures instructing Christians to pray with, or to dead people and many more examples of saints praying in that manner. I'm not talking about someone who is miraculously lifted into heaven and given a special revelation of things to come, I'm talking about doctrinal instruction or examples of engaging in normal prayer with the departed.
"Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture. The true "rule of faith"as expressed in the Bible itselfis Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly."
But it lacks scriptural authority. It is illogical to use a statement on doctrine as the authority itself. 2 Thess. 2:15 is the reference given, but that is an Apostle telling his disciples that the revelation given to him and sated as such, either written or verbal, is to be considered authoritative doctrine. It does NOT sanction church tradition as being authoritative:
"2 Thess. 2:15 With all these things in mind, dear brothers and sisters, stand firm and keep a strong grip on the teaching we passed on to you both in person and by letter.
Mormons use this same argument that not everything God wanted us to know is in the Bible - He gave additional revelations to other apostles and prophets - like Joseph Smith. I'll stick with the admonition in Revelation 22.
That's not to say that supplemental materials aren't useful so that idioms, locations, and traditions mentioned in the Bible can be understood today. But, they are not scripture or doctrine and should not be used as such.
Other scriptures that are specific prohibitions on adding to, or taking away from the word of God are:
Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God [is] pure: he [is] a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Gal 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
Revelation 22:18-19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.
I gave you the extended scenes in the Book of Revelation and you ignored it.
There are no merely “dead”” people as far as Christians who have died in Christ. THere are hundreds of Scriptures in the New Testament about the dead in Christ being present with him. If you are in Christ and they are in Christ, what part of ïn Christ don’t you get?
You don’t really pay attention to what your interlocutors write.
I asked for your examples of earthy-bound souls praying to heavenly-bound souls and you simply repeated your oblique reference to St. John in Revelation. If this is such a strongly supported doctrine, you should be able to enumerate several examples. But, your argument is too weak, so you cast dispersions on my understanding rather than provide scriptural examples.
"I gave you the extended scenes in the Book of Revelation and you ignored it.
You didn't actually give me a quote, but I knew what you meant and I DID addresses it. I said
"I'm not talking about someone who is miraculously lifted into heaven and given a special revelation of things to come, I'm talking about doctrinal instruction or examples of engaging in normal prayer with the departed. "
Also, the elders in heaven spoke to John, but John did NOT speak or pray to them. Same with Peter at the Mount of Transfiguration.
"There are no merely dead people as far as Christians who have died in Christ. THere are hundreds of Scriptures in the New Testament about the dead in Christ being present with him. If you are in Christ and they are in Christ, what part of ïn Christ dont you get?"
The Church: I'm "in the church", but I'm sitting on my couch. Its a statement of relationship. Im part of the church by being a believer, saved by grace, with a specific purpose or calling. Those who believe are part of the body of Christ as individuals in a group. Yes, we are with Him, we are NOT Him.
The Spirit: I concede the spirit does not vanish upon death and its either with our Lord or in Hades, but a persons spirit does not suddenly take on all of the powers of an omnificent/potent/present God. According to the Bible, our spirit remains an individual entity it doesnt become a part of some universal god.
Prayer: We communicate with God through Jesus. No one other then God - The Father/Son/Holy Spirit - is capable of omnificent/potent/present deeds. St. Francis isnt God who can receive and respond to a million people praying to him all at the same time. That concept is far outside the realm of sound Biblical teaching. It can only be supported by ancient cultural traditions and not by Biblical scripture.
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.