Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Sounds like he got caught to me.
BigMack
The local bishop and the Pope are mentioned by name in the Eucharistic prayer. If you don't hear that, you ain't in a Catholic Church!
SD
Mr. Stewart didn't have any time to think because our line was manhandled like it hadn't been at anytime during the season. If you give him time, he can do OK.
SD
As I recall, "clown masses" weren't restricted to the formerly Episcopal Church. On the other hand, I attended a RC funeral mass today for a co-worker's spouse and it was so much better than the RC liturgy of the late 70's early 80's. It's nice to see that they've rediscovered the "beauty of holiness."
I must admit that I was taken aback when the congregation applauded each eulogy. Just don't like applause in church.
There's no such thing. OK, Dave, here's an example of someone who is pretending.
The pendulum is swinging back.
I must admit that I was taken aback when the congregation applauded each eulogy. Just don't like applause in church.
Eulogies are not supposed to be allowed. It has to be about the most violated rule in existence.
SD
They were done after the mass had ended. But the applause still bugged me. I don't really even like eulogies, to be honest. The deceased's son gave a very moving one and people gave a standing ovation which I thought was really over the top, even though his words were powerful and compelling.
What's a "clown mass"?
Eulogies are like whistling past the graveyard, or the tribute vice pays to virtue. Everyone wants to find somethign good to say, like we need convincing, or (perhaps) God needs convincing. Everyone's a hero on their funeral day.
They should be given at the funeral home or somewhere else. The pulpit is for proclaiming God's Truth, not for platitudes.
Have a good weekend folks!
SD
You really don't want to know. I have never seen such a thing, but it is a genral description for the worst possible liberal bastardization of the Mass that you can imagine. The idea that Mass is a celebration means that it should be a "party" with balloons and clowns and dancing and everyone having a good old time.
SD
Sorry. I'm not sure whether you're saying that I'm the one pretending or that you wish there were no lesbian priests?
I was saying that there is no such thing as a lesbian priest because only a male can be a priest. There could be such a thing as a lesbian priestess. I was saying that a lesbian purporting to celebrate the eucharist is an example of someone pretending to be a real priest. It was a big jab at "female priests" and a little jab at Dave who used the word pretending earlier in describing Anglican priests and then retracted the word.
Just joking around a little late on a Friday. Sorry for the confusion.
Last summer, when I needed to get me to a church, I decided to try the local Episcopal Church, since I was confirmed Episcopalian back during the Johnson administration. If the person presiding during the Eucharist was not a lesbian then I'm Ned Flanders. I later learned from someone who met her at Rotary that she is a former RC nun.
What really soured me on the Episcopal Church was not that, but the determined de-emphasis of any kind of doctrine.
Did you see the story on FR today about the Episcopal priest who was suspended for stealing from other peoples' sermons? They determined a few years ago that they in fact had no doctrine regarding homosexuality as they refused to even censure a bishop who ordained an openly gay, non-celibate man. I guess it's nice to see that there is something a clergyman can get in trouble for. Go figure.
I agree completely, even though this statement is paradoxical. It is the prime paradox of Christianity. We need the “work” of turning to God, yet there are no “works” that can save us. The paradox is resolved when we comprehend that our “work” of turning to God can only be accomplished by God through us. What we disagree on, it seems, is how to define “turning from dead works to faith in the living God.”
It is possible for a Christian to backslide. I personally believe that if a Christian backslides far enough that God will take that person home rather then let them stay here on earth.
I don’t agree. I believe that God gives us every opportunity to repent of our errors and return to Him. Even if, like the Prodigal, we have known the goodness of His house but have fled regardless, God will wait watching for our return rather than strike us down. Of course, we should never imagine that repentance is something we’ll have “plenty of time for later.” We never know when our soul will be demanded of us.
Yes, I would say that “believing in Christ” is definitely NOT a process. It is a one-time event. I John 3:2 begins “Beloved NOW are we the sons of God….”
So it is not possible to believe in Christ, then stop believing in Christ, and then return to belief? It seems that the testimony of Christians through the ages contradicts this.
This is describing the process of following Christ. The Christian life is a process of Sancitification. Becoming a Christian is a one-time event, living as a Christian is an on-going process.
I agree with you for the most part, but it seems that you are equating Salvation with Baptism. One “becomes a Christian” through Baptism. Baptism is not a guarantee of Salvation. Your belief seems to be that we are “saved for sanctification,” while the Orthodox belief which I share is that we are “saved through sanctification.”
I’d be interested in hearing your perspective on another relevant part of Scripture, the parable of the wise and foolish virgins (Mt. 25 1-13). This has probably all been gone over here before in discussions over the meaning of “once saved, always saved,” but I’m not familiar with the Baptist understanding of this parable.
Theological debate aside, I wonder how different our views are when applied. We both believe that our initial repentance leads us to true Baptism which leads us to the life of Sanctification. The difference seems to be in our understanding of what constitutes Sanctification, and in emphasis. At what point in this process does “Salvation” occur? We will find out for certain at the end. If I follow Christ believing that it is necessary for me to work out my “salvation with fear and trembling” and find at the end that my Salvation had never been in doubt since my Baptism, so be it. If you follow Christ believing that your life of Sanctification follows your Salvation rather than being your Salvation, and at the end find that your life of Sanctification was part of your Salvation, so be it. We’ve both entered the Kingdom. Christ Bless.
Chiliasm (from ci>lia e[th, a thousand years, Rev. 20:2, 3) is the
Greek, millennarianism or millennialism (from mille anni), the Latin
term for the same theory. The adherents are called Chiliasts, or
Millennarians, also Pre-millennarians, or Pre-millennialists (to
indicate the belief that Christ will appear again before the millennium),
but among them many are counted who simply believe in a golden age
of Christianity which is yet to come. Post-millennarians or Anti-millennarians
are those who put the Second Advent after the millennium.
Rev. 20:1-6. This is the only strictly millennarian passage in the whole
Bible. Commentators are still divided as to the literal or symbolical
meaning of the millennium, and as to its beginning in the past or in the
future. But a number of other passages are drawn into the service of.
the millennarian theory, as affording indirect support, especially Isa.
11:4-9; Acts 3:21; Rom. 11:15. Modern Pre-millennarians also appeal
to what they call the unfulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament
regarding the restoration of the Jews in the holy land. But the ancient
Chiliasts applied those prophecies to the Christian church as the true
Israel.
========
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the
prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign
of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before
the general resurrection and judgment.
It was indeed not the doctrine
of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely
current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin
Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius; while Caius,
Origen, Dionysius the Great, Eusebius (as afterwards Jerome and
Augustin) opposed it.
The Jewish chiliasm rested on a carnal misapprehension of the Messianic
kingdom, a literal interpretation of prophetic figures, and an overestimate
of the importance of the Jewish people and the holy city as the centre of
that kingdom. It was developed shortly before and after Christ in the
apocalyptic literature, as the Book of Enoch, the Apocalypse of Baruch,
4 th Esdras, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and the Sibylline
Books. It was adopted by the heretical sect of the Ebionites, and the
Gnostic Cerinthus.
The Christian chiliasm is the Jewish chiliasm spiritualized and fixed upon
the second, instead of the first, coming of Christ. It distinguishes,
moreover, two resurrections, one before and another after the millennium,
and makes the millennial reign of Christ only a prelude to his eternal reign
in heaven, from which it is separated by a short interregnum of Satan. The
millennium is expected to come not as the legitimate result of a historical
process but as a sudden supernatural revelation.
The advocates of this theory appeal to the certain promises of the Lord,
but particularly to the hieroglyphic passage of the Apocalypse, which
teaches a millennial reign of Christ upon this earth after the first
resurrection and before the creation of the new heavens and the new
earth.HISTORY
OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH
BY PHILIP SCHAFF
VOLUME 2.
Is. 44:8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and
foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God
besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."
xeni>a, <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
You might want to review this link :
dailyChristian Thought Have you ever been confused by the book of Revelation?
Chuck
xeni>a, <truth@YeshuaHaMashiach>
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.