What an odd statement. We are Christianity.
Posted on 02/26/2010 7:32:49 PM PST by marshmallow
On a recent evening, about 60 people—ex-Episcopalians, curious Catholics and a smattering of earnest Episcopal priests in clerical collars—gathered downtown for an unusual liturgy: It was Evensong and Benediction, sung according to the Book of Divine Worship, an Anglican Use liturgical book still being prepared in Rome.
Beautiful evensongs are a signature of Protestant Episcopal worship. Benediction, which consists of hymns, canticles or litanies before the consecrated host on the altar, is a Catholic devotion. We were getting a blend of both at St. Mary Mother of God Church, lent for the occasion.
One former Episcopalian present confessed to having to choke back tears as the first plainsong strains of "Humbly I Adore Thee," the Anglican version of a hymn by St. Thomas Aquinas, floated down from the organ in the balcony. A convert to Catholicism, she could not believe she was sitting in a Catholic Church, hearing the words of her Anglican girlhood—and as part of an authorized, Roman Catholic liturgy.
And that was not the only miracle. Although the texts had been carefully vetted in Rome for theological points, the words being sung were written by Thomas Cranmer, King Henry VIII's architect of the English Reformation. "He remembering his mercy hath holpen his servant Israel," the congregation chanted, "as he promised to our forefathers, Abraham and his seed for ever."
The language of this translation of the Magnificat, one of Christianity's two great evening canticles, is unfamiliar to many Episcopalians today, as it comes from earlier versions of their Book of Common Prayer. Yet a number of former Anglicans are eager to carry some of this liturgy with them when they swim the Tiber, as Episcopalians becoming Catholic often call the conversion. "I wonder why the phrase 'and there is no health in us' was omitted from the...................
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Good advice.
11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep. 12 But the hireling, and he that is not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and flieth: and the wolf catcheth, and scattereth the sheep: 13 And the hireling flieth, because he is a hireling: and he hath no care for the sheep. (John 10)
Isn’t this where we came in 500 years ago?
Great discussion, I love this stuff. Wouldn't touch it myself with a nine foot pole. ;-)
But I do look at history, and so would ask the question this way:
Was there ever a historical time, since the resurrection and Ascension of Christ, when there existed only one human Church, with only one precise doctrine, and one exalted leader to whom all others must submit? If so, can you describe that time, how it began and how it ended?
Not being cute here -- I don't think there ever was such a time, and that's my point.
So my question is: don't you suppose that if God and Christ truly intended for only one human to lead one Church with one precise doctrine, that He would have arranged such a thing by now?
Just asking...
No, that’s where you went out 500 years ago.
I understand that Romans 5 contains a comparison of Christ and Adam and I do not dispute it; however the teaching of abundant grace therein is the teaching of treasure of merits. We are not talking about diverging interpretations but of the scriptural support for the Catholic doctrines.
It certainly doesn't constitute the Papacy
No, alone it doesn't but it shows that Peter was cognizant of his office and intended to pass it on to future popes.
Penance
To "mortify" is to "put to death". There is nothing in Young's translation that is different. On substance, you don't seem to disagree that mortification of the flesh is an example for us, both in scripture and in act, so we seem to agree on that completely (one can, and should, do penance for others, see that doctrine of the treasure of merits again).
supper at Emmaus
Again, I don't see where Young's differs. "To become unseen" is to "disappear", or as Douay trasnlated, "he vanished out of their sight". Your only argument here seems to be that the episode is "about the Resurrection". So is the Eucharist, and how can you say that breaking bread with Christ is not a reference to it? The point remains, the disciples of Christ recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread. That is transubstantiation stripped from its aristotelian veneer.
If you read the scripture with attention, you will become Catholic, or maybe Eastern Orthodox. It is impossible to read the scripture, believe it fully, and remain Protestant.
Thus the same apostle is of opinion that "the eyes of our understanding" are not truly "enlightened" unless we discover what is the hope of the eternal inheritance to which we are called.4 And he everywhere inculcates that we have no just apprehensions of the Divine goodness unless we derive from it a considerable degree of assurance. The principal hinge on which faith turns is this—that we must not consider the promises of mercy, which the Lord offers, as true only to others, and not to ourselves; but rather make them our own, by embracing them in our hearts. Hence arises that confidence, which the same apostle in another place calls peace";1 unless anyone would rather make peace the effect of confidence. It is a security, which makes the conscience calm and serene before the Divine tribunal, and without which it must necessarily be harassed and torn almost asunder with tumultuous trepidation, unless it happen to slumber for a moment in an oblivion of God and itself. And indeed it is but for a moment; for it does not long enjoy that wretched oblivion, but is most dreadfully wounded by the remembrance, which is perpetually recurring, of the Divine judgment. In short, no man is truly a believer unless he be firmly persuaded that God is a propitious and benevolent Father to him, and promise himself everything from his goodness; unless he depend on the promises of the Divine benevolence to him and feel an undoubted expectation of salvation; as the apostle shows in these words: "If we hold fast the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end."2 Here he supposes that no man has a good hope in the Lord who does not glory with confidence in being an heir of the kingdom of heaven. He is no believer, I say, who does not rely on the security of his salvation and confidently triumph over the devil and death, as Paul teaches us in this remarkable peroration:
"I am persuaded [says he] that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." 3
***..that had England remained Catholic the Protestantism would have been another quaint German invention,***
If God had wanted England to remain Catholic the Armada would not have failed, twice!
But then, maybe God just didn’t want England to be Spanish!;-)
“...however the teaching of abundant grace therein is the teaching of treasure of merits.”
No, it teaches that Christ is more than sufficient. It does not teach an accounting system of merit applied to demerit.
“...it shows that Peter was cognizant of his office and intended to pass it on to future popes.”
Absolutely not. It says, “13I think it right, as long as I am in this body, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.”
It doesn’t speak a single word about Apostolic Succession, but moves directly into discussing the value of scripture. “19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation.”
Penance is not what Paul was discussing in Romans 8:13. The flesh doesn’t refer to our bodies, but our sinful nature.
“6We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For one who has died has been set free from sin. 8Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.” - Rom 6
“The point remains, the disciples of Christ recognize Christ in the breaking of the bread. That is transubstantiation stripped from its aristotelian veneer.”
Umm...have to disagree. He repeated what he told them to do in remembrance of him, and when he did so, they remembered and recognized. I just don’t believe they looked at the bread, then up at Jesus, and said, “This bread is Jesus, and you are too!” In fact:
“30When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed and broke it and gave it to them. 31 And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him. And he vanished from their sight. 32They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”
It was the ACT they recognized, not a piece of bread.
Yes, both Unigenitus and the passage in Romans 5 speak of the same thing: that the sanctifying grace of Christ " [laid] up an infinite treasure for mankind"; the treasure that flows, in its abundance, even onto those not fully justified. Strange that you don't see the match.
He isn’t leaving behind the Papacy, but SCRIPTURE
"Tabernacle" is a reference to the Church, not the scripture (your translation hides that fact by substituting "body" instead). However, even with your interpretation, that scripture came from the Church and was canonized by popes. It is certainly one important role of papacy, to preserve and authoritatively explain the scripture.
Penance
Your point is that St. Paul "clearly is not talking about “doing penance”, but being born again". Leaving aside the separate discussion about what born again means (I can direct you to John 3 where baptism is explained to be that rebirth), -- there is that pesky reference to "mortifying the deeds of the flesh" as a condition for that rebirth. So?
Real Presence
You told us what you think, but you did not refer to the scriptural example that supports specifically transubstantiation. If you wish to discuss real presence or the sacrificial character of the Eucharist, we can do so and then I would be bringing different scripture to deal with those.
“The Beginning of the Reformation’s End?”
I don’t think there is any worry of a return to Rome and this:
Gal. 4:7-10, Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ. Howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years.
Col 2:18-23, Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not; Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren (Acts 1:14)
This is how it began. Where there is Mary there is peace and unity. It never ended. We have One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church today. The internal divisions, such as with the liberals, the SSPX, and the Eastern Orthodox, exist but they are all bridgeable. That some leave the Church and invent their own "denominations" (like Christianity were currency) does not alter anything in that regard.
Yes. I am often reminded how Catholic the old Protestantism sounds at times. This is such an example.
Of course, somehow this thought did not prevent Calvin from starting his own pseudochurch. He did not believe his own words, apparently.
You know, we have to thank our oppressors. It is by their evil deeds that we are sanctified and justified in our faith. Now, more than in the days of the Armada we should pray for England. That entire island might go down just as quick as those Spanish ships.
It does say that grace fills the just and then there is planty for the injust. That is the essence of the treasure of merits.
It doesn’t speak a single word about Apostolic Succession
Generally, when someone in authority foresees his death and then says that he will make sure his office endures, that would mean succession, and indeed, the scripture is a big part of it. "Body" is a mistranslation there, by the way.
The flesh doesn’t refer to our bodies, but our sinful nature
Even so, how is mortifying it not taught there? This is not the only verse, of course that teaches penance in general, but this one teaches specific forms of it, that are not an intellectual exercise but rather incurring physical hardship.
I just don’t believe they looked at the bread, then up at Jesus, and said, “This bread is Jesus, and you are too!”
Yet, that is pretty much what happened. The breaking of the Eucharistic bread is when we recognize Jesus' suffering.
Obviously, no return to Rome is possible for the Protestant communites of faith, excepting the very few: the continuing Anglican, — which is already a fact — and perhaps some Lutherans later on.
I think that the rest of the Protestant world will continue to splinter on, and its cultural impact will dwindle and dissipate. Individuals will convert, but not many. Most will lose faith altogether. The ascending forces are Rome and Orthodoxy. Glory be to God.
You wrote:
“But then, maybe God just didn’t want England to be Spanish!”
By your reasoning God apparently didn’t want England to be Christian either. At least it isn’t Christian now. Come to think of it most of the Protestant nations are barely Christian at all these days.
So, tell me, what saves a person, believing in Jesus Christ as savior, or being a member of your religion? If you were to discover a person on the side of a road, near death, and that person asked you what he had to do to be saved, what would you tell him?
What an odd statement. We are Christianity.
Any evidence for this claim?
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.