The Vatican doctors approve the miracle to make Wojtyla a saint

La Stampa ^ | 4/22/2013 | Andrea Tornielli

[metmom]

Matthew 16:15 is Jesus words, but it still didn’t answer the question smvoice asked.

[A CA Guy]

Because of Christ, not because of themselves.

[smvoice]

..he's gone...

Yet another opportunity to read the PLAIN words of Pentecost. WHO was speaking? WHO was he speaking to? WHAT DID HE SAY? And WHY DID HE SAY IT? Questions that, if plainly stated in Acts 2, were honestly answered by the reader, would open the door to studying God's Word of truth, rightly divided. And yet...zzzzzzzzzzz....yawn.....not important to some....

[Natural Law]

"Questions that, if plainly stated in Acts 2, were honestly answered by the reader,..."

While it is within the bounds of this forum to question my logic, my facts and my conclusions, please do not question my honesty.

I provided the the reference to Matthew because whatever St. Peter did from that point forward was in service to the Great Commission he received. That the first group of people he would encounter, in Jerusalem the heart of Judaism, would be predominantly Jews in no way alters St. Peter's life's mission and Papacy.

Peace be with you

[smvoice]

It was not my intention to question your honesty. I apologize if I used the wrong word. I would not have said “honestly answered by the reader” but TRUTHFULLY said by the reader. Meaning, the words are there to be read. There can be no misunderstanding of Acts 2 if it is read AS IT IS WRITTEN. To “misunderstand” the simple words that are written cannot be logically explained. You can say you don’t believe Acts 2, but a person cannot say they can’t read CLEARLY what is CLEARLY WRITTEN.

[Natural Law]

"It was not my intention to question your honesty."

No apologies needed, I just didn't want the ecumenical moment we were having to be dragged off point.

I accept that Scripture requires interpretation in order to render the meanings. I believe that the divisions over His call to unity hurt Him. The fact that so many of us disagree on so many of the points and meanings is proof to me that Jesus would not have left us on our own to decipher His Word. I am pretty sure will disagree on this point too, but Jesus sent us a Paraclete that speaks through His Church and its Magisterium.

When I have ever had difficulties with the teachings of the Church, whit sufficient reflection, rumination, prayer and further study, I have always found the root cause to be my limitations and not that of the Church. I suppose it stems from the differing way we both approach Church teaching. You look for the ways it can or might be wrong whereas I look for the ways it can be right and then conform myself to it.

Peace be with you

[MarkBsnr]

God addresses *all* believers as saints while they are still alive on earth as well as those believers who are in glory. He has no other definition and no other criteria.

However, that is a Protestant tradition and not a traditional Christian one. I believe that only Moses was called a saint. Now, if you read the Bible, you will find that 1st century Jews residing in Jerusalem were referred to as saints. I think that I shall stay with the traditional Christian belief that saints are those who are in Heaven; and Saints are those recognized by the Church (by no means all the entire group of saints) to be in Heaven.

[MarkBsnr]

Old Testament saints are angels...No people...New Testament saints are Christians, living and dead...And they/we are Holy...

Negative. Humans are not angels - we are not equal and created for different purposes. Nowhere are angels called saints. We Catholics refer to St Michael the Archangel, for instance, but we in no way confuse the saints in Heaven with angels. We Christians will judge the angels, by the way.

Instead of corrupting the scriptures, it would have been far less annoying had the Catholic religion invented a new word for their special people supposedly in heaven instead of perverting the bible word already in use in the scriptures...

In attempting to replace Christian terminology with Protestant terminology, this has only resulted in moving further and further from the truth of God.

[MarkBsnr]

Mark, this is the nonsense from which I hoped to extract you. That has not happened as yet, I see. The definitions provided by the RCC are self-proving, self-aggrandizing errors of monumental proportions. Let them go and come into the light of Jesus, alone...if He permits.

I thought that the overriding Reformed thought is that if Jesus wants, I have no choice - either way. If Jesus permits? Hmmm, you may be progressing in the Faith, my friend, albeit at turtle pace. :)

[MarkBsnr]

Because of Christ, not because of themselves.

Correct. However; these two great Apostles were given a great gift, which they used. Do you or I have it? Do people flock to you or I hoping that your shadow passing over them will cure them of illness?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

MarkBsnr,

Thank you for your thoughts. As always, I appreciate you.

I am not concerned in the least - ever - as I think you know, with Protestant thought, with what Luther wrote or thought, etc. It is all interesting to academics. It may inform us historically. It doesn’t bind us.

I am concerned with God’s inspired thoughts, recorded for us, ever there and easily accessible to all Christians, of every stripe who seek Him.

He clearly calls all Christians saints. Since we do not believe in spiritual death for believers, their whereabouts are immaterial (had to say it). All remain what God spoke... here or there.

I do not wish to change what He spoke, but changing the meaning of His Words.

In this, we rejoice!

If it depends on our works to define sainthood, no one would be a saint. If it depends on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by His grace, we rest in Him, give Him all the credit and glorify Him forever.

Hope today is a great day for you and your family. Sun is shining here and Spring is apparently going to make a long-awaited appearance.

[MarkBsnr]

Thank you for your thoughts. As always, I appreciate you.

And likewise. After a shaky start way back when, we have actually had meaningful dialogue and conversation.

I am not concerned in the least - ever - as I think you know, with Protestant thought, with what Luther wrote or thought, etc. It is all interesting to academics. It may inform us historically. It doesn’t bind us.

However, it does illustrate the change in Protestant thought as opposed to traditional Christian thought. The issue of 'saints' was unopposed until people began to think that they personally were able to interpret the Bible and create their own theology. Up until that time, the Church went on St Paul's instruction that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth, not each man.

He clearly calls all Christians saints. Since we do not believe in spiritual death for believers, their whereabouts are immaterial (had to say it). All remain what God spoke... here or there.

You wouldn't have Scripture that says specifically that, do you?

If it depends on our works to define sainthood, no one would be a saint. If it depends on the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us by His grace, we rest in Him, give Him all the credit and glorify Him forever.

If we depended on our works to save us, nobody would be saved. Yet, by the blood of Christ and the promise of salvation, we are made heirs. Yet, we can, and many do, reject that inheritance. Christ came to save all men, yet, does a Mao Tse Tung or a Charles Manson get to be saved? I don't know. I am not the Judge, but going by the words that He has left us, and the teachings of the Church, probably not.

Hope today is a great day for you and your family. Sun is shining here and Spring is apparently going to make a long-awaited appearance.

Better here today. The kids' soccer games were at least bearable. I was going to write to Algore and ask him for a cup of Global Warming.

[fatima]

Me too,it is way too soon for all of this.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

I’ve always found you to be sincere and a true FRiend here. In real life, I know I’d enjoy having a beer and cooking out burgers with you and your family. :-) You love Christ and think and I appreciate our friendship on FR, even though we disagree on things outside the Creeds. We do agree on virtually everything that is core. Our differences make our conversation enjoyable.

... A couple notes of feedback.

“The issue of ‘saints’ was unopposed until people began to think that they personally were able to interpret the Bible and create their own theology. Up until that time, the Church went on St Paul’s instruction that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth, not each man.”

... The blessing of the Reformation is that salvation by faith in the Gospel of Grace was restored. It is too much to think all other theological issues would be resolved at the same time. The following centuries allowed a reexamination of the complete record of Holy Scripture in a systematic way. Obviously, the rise in literacy and movable type helped spread a love of God’s Word. Amazingly, this is still happening. I have friends with Wycliffe who continue to translate His Word into several tribal languages in a muslim country. Many have already come to trust and know Christ.

... The Church is described as the pillar and foundation of faith - as it should always be. We only disagree on what that statement means when it uses the word, “church”. :-)

... Everyone should stive to examine and understand the Word of God, as the command reads - “to show ourselves approved as workmen, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” I fail to see how someone can love God with his or her “whole mind”, if they refuse to engage God’s Word with sincere thought, effort and desire.

... Let’s also be frank here as believers. There are LOTS of “Christians” of every denomination that “make up there own theology” anyway - using whichever bits and pieces of Scripture that appeal to them - and this despite teaching authorities. Let’s go farther. Even inside the Church, historically, leaders did the same.

... In addition, Paul and Peter right that God gave teachers to the Church. That doesn’t provide any believer with cover to not know God’s Word. It does keep the Church on track theologically.

“He clearly calls all Christians saints. Since we do not believe in spiritual death for believers, their whereabouts are immaterial (had to say it). All remain what God spoke... here or there.

“You wouldn’t have Scripture that says specifically that, do you?”

... which part? The calling of Christians saints, or the part about no Christian being dead? Or some other thought...?

” Christ came to save all men, yet, does a Mao Tse Tung or a Charles Manson get to be saved? I don’t know. I am not the Judge, but going by the words that He has left us, and the teachings of the Church, probably not. “

... It seems doubtful, but it certainly would involve them turning from their sin to Him before their death. I don’t know of any historical passage that says this happened. He knows. Still, His blood covers the sins of men who entrust themselves to Him.

We’re finally having a Great Day of Global Warming here - nice enough to have our first cook out! I still hope to snag some great beachfront property when the Oceans rise enough to create a new shoreline.

[MarkBsnr]

I’ve always found you to be sincere and a true FRiend here. In real life, I know I’d enjoy having a beer and cooking out burgers with you and your family. :-) You love Christ and think and I appreciate our friendship on FR, even though we disagree on things outside the Creeds. We do agree on virtually everything that is core. Our differences make our conversation enjoyable.

Oddly enough, I'd have said exactly the same thing except that like my theology, my beer must have substance:

... The blessing of the Reformation is that salvation by faith in the Gospel of Grace was restored. It is too much to think all other theological issues would be resolved at the same time. The following centuries allowed a reexamination of the complete record of Holy Scripture in a systematic way. Obviously, the rise in literacy and movable type helped spread a love of God’s Word. Amazingly, this is still happening. I have friends with Wycliffe who continue to translate His Word into several tribal languages in a muslim country. Many have already come to trust and know Christ.

Actually, salvation follows from faith in God, not specifically in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the map; the map is not the reality. God is. Scriptures describe God. They are not God. Jesus is the Word. Scriptures are the word. Note the emphasis.

... The Church is described as the pillar and foundation of faith - as it should always be. We only disagree on what that statement means when it uses the word, “church”. :-)

The line of bishops that can be traced back to the Apostles and their flocks constitute the Church. That's how Paul meant it and how we mean it today.

... In addition, Paul and Peter right that God gave teachers to the Church. That doesn’t provide any believer with cover to not know God’s Word. It does keep the Church on track theologically.

Correct. One must understand the Scriptures, but not wander far afield. I liken it to mastering driving a car - one must still drive between the lines.

... which part? The calling of Christians saints, or the part about no Christian being dead? Or some other thought...?

The reference to specific saints here on Earth are Moses and 1st century Jews in Jerusalem, as far as I know. Now, the saints in Heaven are those who are saved. Who do they number? I don't know.

We’re finally having a Great Day of Global Warming here - nice enough to have our first cook out! I still hope to snag some great beachfront property when the Oceans rise enough to create a new shoreline.

We are 82 feet above the nominal level of the Mississippi. If we are flooded out, then we may as well write off the entire Midwest.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

MarkBsnr,

"Oddly enough, I'd have said exactly the same thing except that like my theology, my beer must have substance:"

...Right on. Right on.

" Actually, salvation follows from faith in God, not specifically in the Scriptures. The Scriptures are the map; the map is not the reality. God is. Scriptures describe God. They are not God. Jesus is the Word. Scriptures are the word. Note the emphasis."

...Right on. Right on. When I use the phrase, Gospel of Grace, I am not referring to one of the Gospels, but to the good news of salvation via the grace of God (the gracious provision of complete payment for the penalty of our sins and our sin). When I used the word "faith", I am using it in the Biblical way, meaning to entrust oneself to something.

...This does remind me of a good story...

As WWII broke out, a young couple faced the terrible prospect of being in love, but apart during the young man's time overseas. "I'll write to you every single day until I'm back", he said. "And when I return, we'll marry."

"And I'll wait for the mail every day and write back to you!" she promised.

And so it was. There wasn't a night during the three years he fought in Europe that he didn't take time to jot her even just one sentence. She was just as faithful, waiting each day for the mailman to bring her those letters and pick up her own.

After the war ended, he counted the days until he reached our shores again. Within days of docking, he made his way back to his home town and to her door.

When she answered the door, he could tell from here eyes that something terrible was wrong between them. "But I wrote every day!" he cried. "Yes, and I read every letter.... but in waiting every day for the mail, I fell in love with the mailman and we are now married!"

...In that short story, I've often thought that Protestants have been most in danger of falling in love with the mail, instead of the Author. I've also felt Catholics are most in danger of falling in love with the Postal department - from the Postmaster down each level to the local deliveryman - instead of the Author.

...Instead, only The Bridegroom is worthy of our love. He isn't interchangeable with another.

"Correct. One must understand the Scriptures, but not wander far afield. I liken it to mastering driving a car - one must still drive between the lines."

...Right on. Right on.

"The reference to specific saints here on Earth are Moses and 1st century Jews in Jerusalem, as far as I know. Now, the saints in Heaven are those who are saved. Who do they number? I don't know. "

...Nine times in Ephesians, Paul addresses his readers as saints (Eph. 1:1, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:8, 18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18). These saints were LIVING IN EPHESIS, NOT DEAD, though they had been “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1–3). You could also take a look at: Acts 9:13, 32, 41.

...I hope you have a nice rest of your Lord's Day.

[MarkBsnr]

Ah, very good. Very stout of you.

...Nine times in Ephesians, Paul addresses his readers as saints (Eph. 1:1, 15, 18; 2:19; 3:8, 18; 4:12; 5:3; 6:18). These saints were LIVING IN EPHESIS, NOT DEAD, though they had been “dead in trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1–3). You could also take a look at: Acts 9:13, 32, 41.

Ah yes. In addition to the saints in Heaven, saints are those who are sanctified - holy - and dedicate themselves to God. Thank you.