Posted on 02/20/2015 2:37:38 AM PST by Repent and Believe
THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
Session VII - Celebrated on the third day of March 1547, under Pope Paul III
Canon 2. If anyone says that these sacraments of the New Law do not differ from the sacraments of the Old Law, except that the ceremonies are different and the external rites are different, let him be anathema.
No discrepancy really... then you be anathema (Cursed). Your knowledge or lack of knowledge of your denominations history is showing.
“There is no discrepancy between the Bible and the Catholic’s teaching.”
Only through willful ignorance do you really believe that.
“but the human interface in the sacrament clearly commanded in John 20:23 gives us physical feedback that is priceless”
Who needs faith when a man does it??? You are completely missing the point of worshiping in the Spirit.
John 4:23-24 New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. 24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
To worship in Spirit means no man in between God and us such as the OT and the Priest was the intercessor. Your belief in the way of the law is doomed. You do know that the word sacrament was totally made up in the translation from Greek to Latin. Sacrament wasn’t even defined for the first 1200-1400 years of your denomination. It wasn’t until the COT that they became absolutely necessary for salvation.
51 Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Since we're talking about at least self-identified Christians, I thought of John 17:20-23 (NASB):
[20] "I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; [21] that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me. [22] The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one; [23] I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me."
Here I am not promoting any particular vision of what this unity may be in terms of doctrine (I am not saying that this forum should have an established church), but disunity and its fruits are probably a cause of unnecessary scandal.
I'll have more to say about this line of discussion in another post, which I hope to have soon. For now, I'll say that while I'd disagree with any wholescale removal of Religion Forum stuff from the site, the level of discourse could be more fitting of so great and important a subject.
James 3:9-10
[8] But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison. [9] With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the likeness of God; [10] from the same mouth come both blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be this way.
1 Peter 3:15-17
[15] but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; [16] and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. [17] For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong.
Where in the link provided did you derive the title of this article?
Where in the link provided did you derive the title of this article?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is the URL: http://divinumofficium.com/www/horas/English/Martyrologium/02-21.txt
Here is the text that appears when entered (4th Martyr’s account contains all the words used as the title.):
Upon the 21st day of February, were born into the better life
_
In Sicily, under the Emperor Diocletian, [fourth century,] seventy-nine holy martyrs, who through divers torments won the crown of their confession.
At Adrumetum, [Susa] in Africa, [in fourth century,] the holy martyrs Verulus, Secundinus, Syricius, Felix, Servulus, Saturninus, Fortunatus, and sixteen others, who were crowned with martyrdom for their confession of the Catholic faith in the persecution under the Vandals.
At Bethsan, [about 452,] the holy martyr Severian, Bishop of that see.
At Damascus, [in the year 743,] holy Peter Mavimeno. Some Arabs came to see him while he was ill, and to them he said, “ Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as your false prophet Mohammed is,” whereupon they killed him.
At Ravenna, [in the year 556,] the holy Confessor Maximian.
At Metz, [about the year 500,] holy Felix, Bishop of that see.
At Brescia, [in the seventh century,] holy Paterius, [twenty-third] Bishop of that see.
Great post, but just a few words sum up the problem.
“but disunity and its fruits are probably a cause of unnecessary scandal.”
unity, noun: the state of being in full agreement : a way of combining the parts in a work of art or literature so that they seem to belong together
Whether you agree or disagree neither Prots or Caths are in agreement thus I refer back to my OP.
The bible says, not me,, that there is only one name under heaven and earth for men to be saved: the Lord Jesus Christ and non other, so how can that be judgemental ?
There is no salvation according to the bible in mere mortal man, not even the POPE.
Yes I know what is written by the religious professionals.
I'll respond to the rest of this post later, when I have more of a chance to write, but I did have a recent experience like this.
When I reply to a post, I prefer to quote it, and when I do, I prefer to use such things as italics and blockquoting. I always prefer to preview my posts, in part to check if the formatting looks right.
I'd recently posted something from a computer, which I usually use to write, and my post looked just as I intended it. When I later read the same post on a mobile device, though, some of the lines ran together in odd places (although the italicization still looked right). I rechecked it on the computer, and it looked as it did the first time.
No, I don't know what happened on the mobile device (and I haven't looked again). I also don't know if this case had something in common with your experience, but at least there's the possibility.
“...1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
No need to worry about a priest deciding that he knows better than God and retaining someone’s sins.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh, yea? Where in the Bible does the Christ command you to confess your sins to no one? Where in the Bible does it tell us to be as independent as the devil?
Where in the Holy Scriptures that you quoted above does Christ forbid it to confess our sins to a priest, or what makes you think that God cannot inspire a saintly priest to have His mind on the matter? Do you think that God is incapable of molding a holy man to think like Him?
” Or we could just read the Bible and get the clear meaning of how to be saved.
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16”
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Doesn’t Holy Scripture also report Jesus as saying “If you love Me you will do what I have commanded”? Belief in Him is more than just a declaration as in “Lord, Lord!”!
I don’t want to or see my self religious, neither have any allegiance to any denomination, I prefer to be as like the early church without factions or schisms.
Some one asked me one time what religion I am, I said neither, I just believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and what saith the Bible, God’s word.
Well, we both remained calm and straightened it out. I apologize for initially offending you. You are obviously a very decent man.
If you had followed the link to Versions, you would have seen/read that the Divine Office has been "the official prayer of the Catholic Church for at least 1500 years". The 1960 version is merely one of the most recent versions.
It's official in Latin. The English translation people are debating here is completely mangled. A more accurate translation would be "whoever does not accept the catholic/universal Christian faith ...". Please see my comment #79 for Latin, which itself may be a translation of what the 8th Century martyr actually said.
I’ve always been interested in this debate about the meaning of “whose sins you forgive”. Your testimony is among the best explanations I’ve seen of the protestant idea that the exhortation is addressed to all Christians, rather than specifically, as a transmission of authority, to the Apostles and their successors. Do I understand that correctly?
Here’s my question. How does the phrase “and whose sins you retain are retained” fit into that testimony? If one of your brothers decided to retain your sins, despite your eloquent and sincere confession, would you really retain those sins? Forever?
Pope St. John Paul II strikes the balance beautifully, concisely, and without compromise between acknowledging what Muslims get right, and challenging where they go wrong, in his excellent book, Crossing the Threshhold of Hope. After pointing out that the Church has a “high regard for Muslims who worship one God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth,” he then observes after reflecting on Islam and the Koran:
"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely reduces Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son. In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside. Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the World, a God who is only Majesty, never Emmanuel, God-with-us. Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection(p. 92)."
St. John Paul first acknowledges the truth that Muslims get it right when they profess faith in one God. Then, and only then, does he point out they have it as wrong as wrong can be when it comes to what God has revealed to us in Scripture about who he is, and, I would add, what he asks of his people by way of his commandments.
I did not post that.
Are you sure? Comment 116 says posted by eagleone and I clicked “reply” to that comment, which has this very helpful link in it:
http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/do-muslims-worship-the-same-god-catholics-do
Yes, roughly... I think that if one forgives a harm against oneself, that sin is written off the books... It won't go to trial. Justice has been served best in mercy. I think that is why the Bible instructs us to leave this world being indebted to no man... That forgiveness covers (hides) a multitude of sins.
Here’s my question. How does the phrase “and whose sins you retain are retained” fit into that testimony? If one of your brothers decided to retain your sins, despite your eloquent and sincere confession, would you really retain those sins? Forever?
Forever? no. But I think the thing will go to court. Someday I will stand before Yeshua and have to answer for those things I have done which were not forgiven by those against whom I committed them... My accusers will stand with me there... In this I will be judged as I have judged...
But retaining my right to do so is a weird thing - In that, even righteously applied, my retention of those things causes me to generate bitterness and hate. So at least in me, the Spirit instructs me to forgive all, because in that, my spirit is cleaned of that bitterness and hate - I am made clean in that forgiveness, maybe even more than the one who sinned... Sometimes that is awfully hard to do, but in every case so far, my life is made much better, and my load much lighter, just in putting that down. I not only hope to be no man's debtor on that day, but no man's accuser as well.
Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
That is the lesson in 'the first stone'... the one who was harmed had to cast it - No other stone could be cast until that first one - Death or mercy in the hand of the one who could legitimately accuse... I am finding that it is always best to put the stone down... There is wisdom in that somewhere, and I am pretty close to finding it. : )
The Catholic idea that the priest has the authority to either forgive or retain is NOT found in the Greek meaning of the text. The word they have translated into "will be" or "are" is actually the Greek word that means "I am". As in it already existed. The priests do not have, not does anyone else, the authority to decide or commit heaven to their declaration. They, as well as we, have the authority to only declare what has already been stated in 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.