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.
Then he's wrong for two reasons.
One is that Jesus spent an awful lot of time condemning traditions of men, the religious leaders of His day, not just secular men, and the other is that salvation is through Christ alone. If salvation could come by the works of the Law then Christ died for nothing.
Interesting question. The "church" is the spiritual body of Christ, and because of that, it IS a church of saints since we are sanctified by the blood of Jesus Christ. The "Church", I assume by that you mean the Roman Catholic Church, IS an assembly of both saints and sinners and so is every other organized Christian assembly. There is a distinction, then.
All should be welcomed into the faith, but people who continue in their sinful behaviors after joining and do so openly bring shame upon the others. This person should be confronted and lovingly shown the errors of his/her ways. As Jesus told the woman, "Go and sin no more.". A person who feels no moral conviction for sin nor an earnest, heart-felt desire to change, should be considered as not genuine and Scripture tells us should be expelled from the assembly. This action is intended to cause remorse and repentance and, hopefully, reconciliation. This, I believe, is the purpose of "excommunication" in your church.
So The Comedian's comments about Pelosi, Kerry, and Kennedy (moot point there, I know) was that their assembly took no such action and because of that neglect, other members could and do think the moral teachings of the church are optional. Does this explain better?
What “early church leaders writings” are you referring to?
Correct. But all this only brings up another issue: if Christ is going to be the Lord instead of the LORD, then John 8:58 misses the point. In it Jesus is clearly hinting that he is none other than the YHWH, the LORD, which is not supported when he is referred to as just the Lord.
What leads you, in John 8:58, to say that Jesus is hinting he is YHWH?
Like Irenaeus said:
“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)
It was the Holy Spirit that revealed the truth to their hearts - the "barbarians" who couldn't read, I guess. This "tradition" they were taught was INDEED the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truths of God. The teachings of Christ and the apostles were handed down from church to church for many years verbally, or from notes the disciples took (we don't know that some didn't do that, right?).
When they were ready, the Holy Spirit inspired the writers of scripture to begin writing the teachings down. This was likely due to the growth and the distance between the churches and the availability of teachers. These writings contained the truths, all the truths, God intended for his church for all time, just as he did for the Jews. So the traditions Irenaeus spoke of are all found in the Bible, he even iterates what the truths were that the barbarians would be taught.
The argument today is if the traditions the Catholic Church teaches that are not found in scripture are also inerrant and inspired. That is the disagreement, not whether or not some traditions that were made part of scripture didn't exist prior to the books of the NT being written. Sola scriptura, to me, means that the scriptures are the ultimate authority for doctrines of the faith and, on that, every early "church father" agreed.
Mark, harmony does not have to be a two-way street. The God of the Bible demands obedience. We see that in the OT, we see it in Mary, and in Jesus. The Holy Spirit leads, and men follow. It's a one way street.
The opposite of harmony is discord, disobedience, rebellion. God does not force you, but if you come to God then God will always be in charge. And you will always be the follower.
the “I am” (that’s what YHWH is roughly translated)
He didn't say that. That verse is known as Pericope Adulterae. It does not exist in odler verisons of John. It's a latter-day addition. Read up on it. You are quoting something Jesus never said.
That logic fails as the concepts are not mutually exclusive. God is not limited by failed man made constructs.
Your weak response could be given for any contradiction.
If Christ is within us at all times, He cannot then be received additionally during the Lord's Supper.
Either/or.
Rome teaches error and contradiction.
The Pericope Adulterae was not just that one verse but the passage of John 7:53-8:11. A quick check on Wiki shows that there IS evidence that the story was contained in early manuscripts. Per Wikipedia:
The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel.
I know you don't agree, but I believe the Bible we have today is what God has preserved for the world. It is exactly what he intended for us to have.
adonai or adonay is simply our English tongue pronouncing the Hebrew word for Lord.
That is simply incorrect:
JudaismJewish Encyclopedia.com says,In the Old Testament, the word 'Pardis' (a transliteration of the Persian word) occurs in Song 4:13, Eccl.2:5, and Neh. 2:8 meaning 'park', the original Persian meaning of the word, similar to the description of the parks of Cyrus the Great by Xenophon in Anabasis.
In Second Temple era Judaism 'paradise' came to be associated with the Garden of Eden and prophesies of restoration of Eden. The Septuagint uses the word around 30 times, both of Eden, (Gen.2:7 etc.) and of Eden restored (Ezek. 28:13, 36:35) etc. In the Jewish pseudepigrapha use of paradise varies. In the Apocalypse of Moses Adam and Eve are expelled from paradise after having been tricked by the serpent. Later after the death of Adam, the Archangel Michael carries the body of Adam to be buried in Paradise which is the Third Heaven.
Later in Rabbinical Judaism the word 'Pardis' reoccurs, but less often in the Second Temple context of Eden or restored Eden. Tosefta Hagigah14b uses the word of the veil around mystic philosophy.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradise
—Biblical Data:The word "paradise" is probably of Persian origin. It occurs but three times in the Old Testament, namely, in Cant. iv. 13, Eccl. ii. 5, and Neh. ii. 8. In the first of these passages it means "garden"; in the second and third, "park." In the apocalypses and in the Talmud the word is used of the Garden of Eden and its heavenly prototype (comp. references in Weber's "Jüdische Theologie," 2d ed., 1897, pp. 344 et seq.). From this usage it came to denote, as in the New Testament, the abode of the blessed (comp. Luke xxiii. 43; II Cor. xii. 4; Rev. ii. 7).[snip] [emphasis mine]
See also, IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL - Jewish Encyclopeida
The ideas of the immortality of the soul and the abode of the blessed came much earlier to Jewish thought than you are portraying. As can be be seen from the sources above, it is not at all implausible that Jesus was simply telling the thief that he would be him in the abode of the blessed, and used a word picture to convey that truth. There is no evidence or reason to assume that the thief would not have understood the word in this way.
Click on the links if you want a more balanced view of the Jewish mindset than I am able to present here in short excerpts.
Cordially,
For example in Deut. 3:24, Adonai (Lord) is used referring to God- Jehovah. The word lord - adown - is used when referring to people as in a master. In Gen. 23:6, Sarah uses it referring to Abraham. In the KJV, Jehovah is written as LORD, adonai is written as Lord and adown is written as lord. At least that is what I learned.
“The upper case is used in many English translations where the tetragrammaton appeared in Hebrew.
adonai or adonay is simply our English tongue pronouncing the Hebrew word for Lord.”
In deed yes, ‘lord’ could be applied to the Almighty or a human. I guess I should have been a bit less terse.
‘kay, then. Glad we see eye-to-eye on this. Have a peaceful and restful night.
boatbums - out
Cheers!
BUMP.
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.