Posted on 12/25/2024 5:52:14 PM PST by blueplum
The Vatican is set to open five sacred portals starting on Christmas Eve for the first time in 25 years.
The opening of the Holy Doors marks the beginning of the 2025 Jubilee which is a year of forgiveness, reconciliation and renewed focus on the spiritual life....
At the start of Christmas Eve Mass, Pope Francis will push open the Holy Door in St Peter’s Basilica, which will stay open throughout the year to allow the estimated 32 million pilgrims projected to visit Rome to pass through....
The process of opening the four basilica doors involves removing the brick wall that covers each door from the inside of the basilica, followed by the Pope pushing the doors open to signal the beginning of the Holy Year.
When Jubilee finishes on January 6, 2026, the Pope will be the last person to walk through each of the four doors before closing them, which will then be bricked up and sealed....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
That is 100% true, the OT jubilee’s were indeed every 50 years. In Leviticus 25:8-13 says to make every 50th year a Holy Year for the people to reflect and remember what the Lord has done for them and to give thanks to Him.
Deuteronomy 15:1-2 a more ordinary form of the jubilee was established every 7 years, but the 50 year one per Leviticus which was much more in depth is still to be celebrated in the Jewish Liturgical worship calendar as one of their religious feasts.
So around the 1300’s or so the Popes began to put a 25 year jubilee on the Catholic Church’s Liturgical calendar. Pope Boniface VII seems to have been first and it was varied from 25 to 50 years, you might have one then next time 30 or 35 years or 50 years, etc.. By the time of Pope Paul II in 1470, the Jubilee years were fixed to be celebrated every 25 years so the Church already has set in its Liturgical calendar when the next Jubilee year will be celebrated, which of course will be 2050
Just one of many Rome has.
Yes, it is a syncretic pagan religion.
Wasn’t/isn’t the shed blood of Christ sufficient to cleanse us of all sins??
ealgeone:
Where did anything I posted deny that Christ suffered and died on the Cross?
Not my question.....asking IF His shed blood is sufficient to forgive all sins.
Those are actually Scriptural unlike this heresy from Rome.
Exactly, this is just more nonsense invented over the centuries that Christ never would have taught.
ealgeone:
Yes Christ dying on the cross is how and what forgives humanities sins and reconciles humanity back to God.
And my point still stand. Nothing in what I have written denies that Dogma of the Catholic Faith.
No it is not, in fact the Canon of Scripture as being what was universally held to be the Canon was not formally defined till the 4th century. That is a fact.
Even ole James White, Mr. I have been debating for over 30 years finally conceding that sola scriptura was not even possible to bind everyone in the early Church before the 4th century since there was no agreed upon Canon of the Scripture.
Total 16th century Protestant novelty
He has either forgiven ALL of our sins or He hasn't.
Col 2:13-14 tells us He has forgiven ALL of our sins.
There is no further sacrifice required.
Jesus had defined the OT and it does not include the books that Rome added at Trent.
We do have a good indication the canon was generally agreed upon by the end of the 2nd century. Some were in question due to authorship, but they were not rejected.
Paul's letters were already recognized as Scripture.
IIRC Athanasius was the first to provide a list of the books in the NT. However, this was recognizing what the church had already recognized. And IIRC, he excluded the books Rome has in the Apocrypha.
Really?!
You mean God wasn't capable of having Mary free of original sin?
Where did you get this Divine information?
ealgeone:
We agree that Christ died on the Cross, rose from the dead and Ascended into Heaven.
What we disagree on is Soteriology. Christ died for the forgiveness of sins. But with protestants it depends on what you mean by forgiveness of sins. I have now realized that protestant soteriology is like a box of chocolates, you don’t know what it is unless the protestant clearly tells you what among the thousands of protestant ecclesial communities [protestants don’t have real Churches from Catholic Ecclessiology, only outside the Catholic Church would the Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Church of the East have valid Bishops and valid sacraments, but that is an ecclesiology ? not soteriology]
Over the years, I will just take the Baptist [SBC] who were, maybe still are the largest protestant ecclesial community.
In the 1970s and 80’s the so called Free Grace Soteriology was rising in the SBC, stated simply once one believes, which just means has knowledge and asset to who Christ is and his death/resurrection, one is saved. This means even if one falls into Apostasy, or even satanism [yes I heard Free Grace pastors and theologians on Youtube say that] one is going to heaven.
Now from my Catholic perspective, that is heretical nonsense.
In the last 25 years or so in reponse to the Free Grace Soteriology, there was a resurgence in 5 Point Calvinism in the Baptist circles. These folks are called Reformed Baptist and they outright called the Free Gracers heretics. None of the original Protestants [Luther in Germany, Calvin in Northern France, Zwingli in Switzerland, Crammer or Cromwell in England] held to this “Free Grace” stuff. That is a product of 19th century American sola scriptura movements as part of the Great awakening/Dispensationalist movement.
Now with the 5 Point Calvnist, while they at least have a Systematic Theology [I give them that] and they start at least from Common Theology with us Catholics [Saint Augustine and Grace, Original sin, theology of the Cross], there 5 Point Calvinism goes to the other extreme from the Free Grace in that God positively decrees those who are elect, man has no free will [which Free Gracers affirm] and those who are not elect were positively predestined to hell [That is heretical from the Catholic perspective]
So while both the Free Grace protestants and Calvinist both affirm God’s Grace saves, their soteriologies are 100% at odds.
Then you have the Arminian view of Soteriology which is somewhere between the 2, but more towards Calvinist Reformed.
All of the 3 protestant soteriologies I laid out do have this notion of Legal Justification, that is Christ declared one Just but Man himself is still not changed.
Catholic soteriology links Incarnation with Cross and Resurection. Christ took on our humanity to restore us back to our state before the fall. Thus, Christ reveals to us what are true human nature was and truly is, the image God created us before the fall.
So in Catholic soteriology, Grace is poured into inner man and man is actually restored and renewed and is actually in a state of Grace [not covered in Grace but still a pile of cow dung underneath].
Some adhere to wearing a man-made piece of cloth known as the scapular to avoid the hell-fire. Perhaps you subscribe to that.
However, all that aside, you've not addressed the issue of the sufficiency of Christ to forgive ALL of our sins....hence no need for purgatory or the scapular or the miraculous medal, or the need to walk through the doors at the Vatican.
Rome advances the false idea of mortal sin as all sin separates us from God. The type of sin doesn't matter...all sin separates us.
You're advancing Dunn's argument which is a weak argument to justify the Immaculate Conception.
God is capable of doing whatever He wants. However, He will not contradict Himself.
Where did you get this Divine information?
IF one reads the Bible one will realize that everyone born of man and woman since the Fall is a sinner.
There are no carve outs for Mary in this regard.
You mean God wasn't capable of having Mary free of original sin?
The better question would be is God capable of preserving Christ in the womb from the effects of sin with the need of Mary being sinless??
Indeed, during Christ's entire physical life on earth, He was surrounded by sin 100% of the time in every human he met. He remained Holy. He was more than capable.
ealgeone:
Yes Dogmatically defined means with a Solemn Definition, but it is not a different Canon.
At the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 in SESSION 11 4 February 1442 we see the canon of 73 books that were again Dogmatically defined at Trent defined here, but without a canon that has an anathema attached to it [which the Council of Trent did]
So at the Counci of Florence in 1442 you have a defined Canon in a Council which would fall under Ordinary and Universal Magesterium and thus is infallible. With Trent you had it with a solemn Dogmatic Definition which is higher level of Magesterium, but it is the same Canon.
That is not true about Saint Athanasius. In the early Church Canon was based on the following Criteria
1] Authorship, who was the author
2]Was it read in the Liturgy of the Church [Eucharist] as there is Lex Orandi Lex Credendi, the Law of prayer and the law of Faith are tied together
3] Was the book used in defining Doctrine or instructing Cathechumens [those to be baptized as adults] in the faith.
So something that clearly met all 3 above, it was received as canon. But some books could be questioned on 1 Authorship, i.e. there was debate early on about who wrote Hebrews. Revelation was questioned by many well into the 4th century per Eusebius Church History circa 325 AD
Regarding Canon n the 2nd Century it was Rome that was the one who started defining a Canon due to Gnostics such as Marcion, who was excommunicated unilaterally by Pope Saint Pius 1 in 144AD, by the 2nd half of the 2nd century, the Muratorian Fragment compiled by the Church of Rome gives us what are 23 of the 27 books that would be Universally accepted in the 4th [Revelation was actually accepted at Rome by then]
Regarding Saint Athanansius, I think you need to read what he actually wrote. Codex Alexandrinus, which is a late 4th century Codex contains all the Deuterocanonicals, i.e. Baruch+Letter of Jeremiah, Danial+Susana+prayer of Azariah, from the LXX, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Macabees, Wisdom and Sirach. It is clear that both the Churches of Alexandria and Constantinople were consulted by the North African Bishops who gathered at Councils in the late 4th and early 5th century. Council of Carthage in 419 AD has the same canon and its decrees were sent to Rome for review and confirmation of Pope Boniface.
So while the Codex likely was bounded after the time of Saint Athanansius, it does show by then what were books to be read in the Liturgy, criteria 2.
Saint Athanasius clearly uses the Deuterocanonical books to teach Doctrine, even though they were not all included to be read in the Church during his time. For example, in his “On the judgement of Dionysius written circa 354 AD, he clearly cites 1 Macabees, Wisdom and Sirach.
In fact, if you read Saint Athanasius Letter 39, he clearly cites Wisdom, Sirach, Esther [which was not included in his Canonical list], Judith and Tobit are books that the Fathers said are to be read by those newly joined to us and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness.
One example of how the 7 Deuterocanonical books were used for teaching and instruction. Saint Athanasius in that same 39th letter writes “Well then they do not read the Scriptures in this way, that is to say, who do not chant the divine songs intelligently but simply to please themselves, most surely are to blame for a “hym of praise is not suitable for the lips of a sinner [Sirach 15:9].
If you read is writings against the Arians from 362 AD, he makes frequent use of Wisdom and Sirach as well as the LXX version of Daniel, Baruch
In his writing on the defense of the Nicene Faith, Saint Athanasius cited Baruch as well.
So when we talk about canon, 1] Authorship and then 2] Read in Liturgy and 3] used in teaching Doctrine or Instructing the faith.
Some books were both 2 and 3, some one but not the other, so Canon has to be understood the way it was in the period before the Councils that way.
ealgeone:
No, I made my point. You are free to disagree. When you say Catholics have differing takes on Theology, I beg to differ. Catholics are obliged to hold to all Dogmas and Doctrines of the Catholic Church.
Where Catholics can have some disagreement and debate, but done with charity hopefully is on Authoritative Magisterium. That is the Pope and teachings that deal with Church Governance, disciplines, appointments of Bishops and Cardinals, practices, how Liturgy is celebrated or should be celebrated etc. Those are not binding on the faith, but require the assent of the mind and will. Still one is not required to agree with them but one should always be charitable and respectful with such disagreements and not run down to their local parish and create conflict and tension among their Catholic brothers and sisters.
ealgeone:
Well let me put it to you this way, I am not going to fly to Rome n 2025 nor am I required to nor have to.
But if I struggle with some sin, which is highly probable, then I should respond to the Holy Spirit and go to the Sacrament of Confession and confess my sins by which God’s Grace forgives and restores me, etc.
I gather you are a Free grace protestant, yes or no?
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.