Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
.- Thousands of pilgrims and faithful gathered at noon Sunday in St. Peter’s Square to pray the Angelus with the Holy Father. Before the prayer, he said that the fruits of the recently ended Year for Priests could never be measured, but are already visible and will continue to be ever more so.
“The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the Church and for the world. From the heart of the Son of God, overflowing with love, all the goods of the Church spring forth,” proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI. “One of those goods is the vocations of those men who, conquered by the Lord Jesus, leave everything behind to dedicate themselves completely to the Christian community, following the example of the Good Shepherd.”
The Holy Father described the priest as having been formed by “the same charity of Christ, that love which compelled him to give his life for his friends and to forgive his enemies.”
“Therefore,” he continued, “priests are the primary builders of the civilization of love.”
Benedict XVI exhorted priests to always seek the intercession of St. John Marie Vianney, whose prayer, the “Act of Love,” was prayed frequently during the Year for Priests, and “continues to fuel our dialogue with God.”
The pontiff also spoke about the close of the Year for Priests, which took place this past week and culminated with the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He emphasized “the unforgettable days in the presence of more than 15,000 priests from around the world.”
The feast of the Sacred Heart is traditionally a “day of priestly holiness,” but this time it was especially so, Benedict XVI remarked.
Pope Benedict concluded his comments by noting that, in contemplating history, “one observes so many pages of authentic social and spiritual renewal which have been written by the decisive contribution of Catholic priests.” These were inspired “only by their passion for the Gospel and for mankind, for his true civil and religious freedom.”
“So many initiatives that promote the entire human being have begun with the intuition of a priestly heart,” he exclaimed.
The Pope then prayed the Angelus, greeted those present in various languages, and imparted his apostolic blessing.
“Nothing like the real soup the Protestantism find itself in as it ,on one hand, proclaime that all of its doctrines are from the scripture, and then, on the other hand, teaches salvation by faith alone which is dirctly contradicted by the scriptire. Resolve that one for me, please.”
I wish somebody would answer this, sincerely. Because I’ve always sought this answer and have never even seen a serious attempt.
That is an acceptable summation; except it also says very emphatically that the Protestant heresy of "faith alone" is just that, damnable heresy that kills that little faith thet exists.
But the notion of as you put is "hollow" faith should be distinguished from mature faith of a Catholic Christian is a good one. Faith is made mature through works of love (Gall 5:6); then it becomes saving faith. That is the Catholic teaching.
The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation .
Your idea that because St. James wrote to Christians (so did St Paul, St. John, St. Jude, and St. Peter), it does not describe the process of salvation for anyone is another manifestation of phony Protestant hermeneutics. It also happens to be controverted by Mathew 25:31-46 (shorter version is Romans 2:6-10) where it is explained that both salvation and condemnation of anyone is decided based on works.
We side with the Arab Christians should they be oppressed by non-Christians, and want the Christian relics to be in our possession, yes. We are Christians, you know.
Since you have divided the scripture so that to ignore where it teaches the Eucharist and the sacramental confession, you did not divide it rightly, you tossed what your pastor doesn’t want you to read about.
In the fullness of time. However, where the altar is there is Jerusalem.
Indeed. "Paradise" in that speech is the shortest and most effective way to convey a complex meaning.
This is also why the attempts to place a comma so that "today" refers to the telling rather than to the abiding in Paradise, -- are false, as that would violate the economy of that speech on the Cross.
The division of days into workday and holidays is not in the scripture? How about Christ prior to His incarnation, then during His ministry on Earth, then after, with us and at the right hand of the Father, -- is that in any scripture?
A minor point, "indwelling" typically refers to the Holy Ghost. Christ is "present" or "abiding".
There is no proof of that,best guess is that an Aramaic version of Matthew was written in the early 40's.
Actually the gospels are Old Testament because they were written about a time when the Law was still in effect and before the declaration of the new testament and the death and resurrection of Christ
I agree the OT is fulfilled in the NT by what the Apostles saw in Christ. This does not change the fact that the NT was NOT written before Christ's death,but years after. The Jews don't see Christ as Messiah by the OT fulfillment either
Also, not every single thing in the NT can be traced to the OT
Early Christians on Tradition and we are to follow the Catholic Church teaching
“But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching and faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH from the beginning, WHICH THE LORD GAVE, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian.”
St. Athanasius, Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 1,28, 359 A.D
Saint Irenaeus
“Those, therefore, who desert the PREACHING OF THE CHURCH, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to FLEE TO THE CHURCH, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180)
Saint Gregory of Nyssa
“[S]eeing, I say, that the CHURCH teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the TRADITION has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them.” Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6 (c. A.D. 384).
Saint Ambrose
“Wherefore all other generations are strangers to truth; all the generations of heretics hold not the truth: the CHURCH ALONE, with pious affection, is in possession of the truth.” Ambrose, Commentary of Psalm 118,19 (A.D. 388).
Saint Augustine
“Let us not hear, this I say, this you say; but thus says the Lord. Surely it is the books of the Lord on whose authority we both agree and which we both believe. There let us seek the Church, there let us discuss our case.” He goes on: “Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, with the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.” -
Augustine (”De unitate ecclesiae”, [on the Unity of the Church]3)
“But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture BUT FROM TRADITION, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary COUNCILS, THE AUTHORITY OF WHICH IS QUITE VITAL TO THE CHURCH.”-Letter of Augustine to Januarius 54,1,1, 400 A.D.
Saint Jerome
“My resolution is, to read the ancients, to try everything, to hold fast what is good, and not to recede from the faith of the CATHOLIC CHURCH.” Jerome, To Minervius & Alexander, Epistle 119 (A.D. 406).
Saint Basil
“Now I accept no newer creed written for me by other men, nor do I venture to propound the outcome of MY OWN intelligence, lest I make the words of true religion merely human words; but what I have been taught by the holy Fathers, that I announce to all who question me. In my CHURCH the creed written by the holy Fathers in synod at Nicea is in use.” Basil, To the Church of Antioch, Epistle 140:2 (A.D. 373).
To annalex...”James 2: 17-26 asserts nothing of the sort you seem to claim.”
Quix, these verses are certainly and assuredly about faith and works being required.
They cannot be read or understood in any other fashion without parsing and twisting in a Clintonesque tactic.
Try again.
Where does it say in the Bible that he took the redeemed to heaven?
People who die today either go to Heaven or Hades/Sheol
Where does it say so in the Bible?
What you say regarding Hades, Sheol and Paradise is simply not historically accurate. They have some things in common (which is a common feature in Mediterranean and Middle eastern relrigions) but are completely different concepts.
The Christian concept is a corrupt Judeo-Hellenic amalgam derived from the Septuagint translation which refers to Sheol as Hades. Both are unrelated to paradise.
Early Christians had different beliefs regarding paradise. However, it was clearly separated from heaven by the end of the 2nd century by Irenaeus.
Origen, also a late 2nd century apologetic, asserted that it was a temporary place where the redeemed souls awaited their resurrection, not eternal bliss. Eastern Churches still hold this view.
It seems, therefore, that only Luke believed Jesus' kingdom was the paradise which is odd to say the least.
So, paradise and heaven are not one and the same, even though that is the belief that seems to persist in the West (as well as Islam) which is why everyone seems to think that Jesus promised the thief that he will be in heaven with him on that day.
My point was and is that (1) in Luke's passage Jesus (con)fuses his kingdom (heaven) with paradise (which is baseless whether he was referring to Sheol or Hades) and (2) that his promise "today you will be with me in paradise" was deceptive because he did not go to paradise on the day he died.
The Church teaches that after dying on the Cross Jesus "went" to hell, not paradise. The Bible says nothing of either. So, where are you getting your story from?
My third point is that Jews did not believe in paradise as such and that he was speaking to a dying Jewish thief in Greek (!) about concepts neither he nor the thief, as Jews, would have believed, using temrinology neither would have used.
Alex asserts that the thief was Greek based on the Church legend concocted centuries later, in order to "harmonize " the story, giving the thief a Greek name and thus "making" him Greek. In this case, Alex argues, the thief would have understood what paradise is as we understand it. But that's simply not so.
To a Greek, paradise was not the kingdom of God in heaven, but the kingdom of the god of the underworld, whose name is Hades. By telling the thief, presumably Greek, that he will be with him that same day in paradise, he was telling the thief that he was the God of the underworld!
My "modernist trash" doesn't mean your "revisionist trash" is correct. Your whole argument is based on a legend concocted by the Church centuries after the fact, and on the faulty presumption that a 1st century Greek thief in Palestine would have known something about the Torah.
Your argument also dismisses the obvious flaw, namely that the Jesus' statement on the cross does not follow the thief's petition. Your argument ignores the fact that heaven is not mentioned, or that paradise is not heaven. Your argument ignores the fact that no matter how the Church tried to convolute this story Jesus' kingdom is not paradise, unless Jesus' name is Hades. Your argument ignores the fact that Jesus' promise was not kept according to the what the Church teaches. Your argument ignores the fact that the concept of Paradise as the Garden of Eden was not the belief of the Jews or the Early Christians, although the Hebrew word for "garden" (any garden) is a derivative of the Persian word otherwise known as paradise.
THIS, from a person who believes and is taught that his church is ISRAEL? Sorry, you don't even know where you are in God's Word, never mind who you are, and you want to instruct me in rightly dividing the Word of TRUTH? lol!
You are more than welcome.
To suppose that Jesus should have answered the thief's plea with some sort of extended theolgolical lecture on Heaven and Hell, the intermediate state, the resurrection of he dead, the Kingdom of God, etc., especially when enormous effort was required just to breathe while being crucified doesn't make any sense
I never presupposed that. I think a direct answer to the petition "I will" would have sufficed and made more sense, and would have required less laborious breathing.
That said, Hebrew to this day does not have a word "Paradise" or the equivalent. The fact that the Hebrew word for garden (any garden) is irrelevant. When Jesus supposedly said that on the Cross, paradise and heaven were not equated in the Jewish mindset.
If the thief was Greek, as Alex presupposes based on a legend made up by the Church centuries later, then the word paradise would have meant to the thief the abode of the dead in Hades, the kingdom of the god called by the same name.
Thus, Jesus would have been telling the Greek thief that he is the god Hades, the god of the underworld, not heaven.
The idea that paradise is 'heaven' doesn't come in until much later; it is, in fact, another Pauline innovation (2 Cor 12:2-4), being equated to third heaven. Chances are that Luke borrowed that meaning from Paul. But the crucifixion took place long before Paul started altering concepts and inventing things on his own.
So, in that sense, Alex is right that Luke's verses represent hellenism. But, this by no means suggests that the early Christians shared his or Paul's view. Revelation 2:7 equates it to the Garden of Eden, which is neither heaven nor Hades, but right here on earth.
By the end of the 2nd century, the Church clearly distanced itself from the idea that paradise was in heaven (Irenaeus, Origen). So, no matter how you much one tries, what Luke wrote does not make sense.
Neither does Jesus answer the petition directly (such as "I will" or "Count on it"), nor do we know if the thief was Greek or Jewish, nor is paradise Jesus' kingdom, nor heaven, nor does the Bible say anything where Jesus' soul "went" after he died on the Cross, but we do know that what the Church teaches does not correspond to the phrase "today you will be with me in paradise."
The Greek text (Septuagint) of Psalm 110:1 uses the same word (kyrios) for both Lords. This is misleading because the Hebrew text uses the tetragrammaton reserved only for God for the first one and the second one is a secular title never used for deity.
Where is hyparchio used to assert pre-existence? The exact verse please. The only one I can think of is Phil. 2:6 by . The word itself is obviously another Pauline innovation because the only other author besides Paul who uses the word is Luke, not surprisingly and definitely not in the meaning you suggest.
The earliest copy of the letter to Philemon is a fragment dated 3d century otherwise known as Papyrus 87 which contains but a few broken verses. The earliest complete copy of the Epistle to Philemon known is a copy dating to the 7th century (Papyrus 60).
Based on that we can't possibly know if the verse Phil 2:6 was in the original the way it appears in P60 because we do know that manuscripts have been "Christianized" to keep up with the develping doctirnes.
Papyrus 89 (4th century) allegedly contains the letter to Philemon, but to my knowledge that papyrus is a copy of the Book of Hebrews, which was not written by Paul, and is not a collection of Pauline prison letters.
This is some one elses work,not just quotes you should give the URL.
What we do see francis is there was not agreement by all the men the RC call church fathers..so we have to ask ourselves..which men were right..does the church rest on tradition that is EXTRA biblical or does it rest on the words of scripture confirming the tradition
Here is another quote from
Athanasius ..which seems to support the need for scriptures to verify tradition
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture” (De Synodis, 6)
Even if nobody had advocated sola scriptura before the Reformation, the truth would remain the truth. The scriptures are the only apostolic material we have today. As such, they’re the voice of the apostles, and they speak louder than all other traditions.
Here is writings where Blessed Irenaues gives credit to those who followed Tradition without reading Scripture....
“To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established”.-Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 4 verse 2)
This shows that Blessed Irenaues believed in Salvation through TRADITION as well
Quite so: “.does the church rest on tradition that is EXTRA biblical or does it rest on the words of scripture confirming the tradition”.
Tradition is the blanket under which to bring in all the myths and legends necessary to support the teachings of Catholicism.
Filtering traditions through the Scriptures and very little comes through.
Well, it certainly works for the tradition of sola scriptura.
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.