Posted on 10/14/2004 5:55:33 PM PDT by xzins
bump
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8
But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 1 Corinthians 5:11
When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Galatians 2:14
Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! Galatians 5:11
Well said, Betty.
This is exactly what the pro-gay forces in the mainlines mean when they say, "God is doing a new thing."
They've had an imagining, a feeling, and that experiential event trumps scripture.
How?
Because it's the "god within them" that equals feeling that equals truth REGARDLESS of scripture BECAUSE the scripture is only the recounting of the "imaginings" of those who lived in those eras.
Good verses.
Paul wasn't nearly so "inclusive" as these folks, was he? In fact, he was at times downright exclusive.
Exactly, xzins! Yet scripture is not the mere imaginings of primitive peoples. For one thing, it seems to me Genesis must have been divinely given, for one cannot imagine how such primitive, idol-worshipping people as the ancient Israelites would have had the "sophistication" or the experience to have come up with the account of Creation given in Genesis.
Case in point: How would the primitive mind ever have conceived the idea of "nothing," from which creation was drawn forth by God's Will and Holy Word? In the primitive imagination, either the world was understood as eternal; or there was always a "something" that preceded the beginning of the world -- for instance, a vast ocean with a giant turtle in it, on whose back the world somehow magically comes to rest. The point is, the primitive mind is informed by naturalistic concepts; arguably, the "nothing" of ex nihilo creation is not a naturalistic concept.
Further, on the ethics front: Man did not conceive the idea of giving up worshipping idols -- by which the primitive thought he could make nature serve his interests -- on his own. The only way primitive man would have ceased an activity that he understood as indispensable to his own well being would have been that God commanded him to do it! And the ancient habit was so hard to break, that the Tribes of Israel frequently "back-slid" into idolatry, divine command notwithstanding.
In our times, we have "new idols" to worship, which frequently go under the head of "the god within." But let's face it, "the god within" is the main strategy of self-divinization: One becomes one's own idol of worship.
I can't imagine that this sort of thing is pleasing in the sight of God. For I strongly doubt that He ever repealed the First Commandment, which is the foundation of the divine covenant with Man. Indeed, the Second Dispensation inaugurated by the Incarnation of the Son of God in Christ renews this foundation.
Folks are telling themselves fairy tales these days, in order to justify what God does not justify.
An invalidly ordained priest is not a priest, but a layman, and is thus incapable of confecting a valid Eucharist. That is beyond dispute the common faith of both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.
Now you can disagree about the invalidity of Anglican orders, but Catholics in communion with the See of Rome are not free to do so. Hence (with the exception I noted above), we do not and cannot consider the Anglican Eucharist to be anything more than a piece of bread. (If it's any consolation to you, there are some factions within Orthodoxy which say exactly the same thing about our Eucharist.)
By the way, your aside, "As you know, Roman Catholic laypeople do not partake of the Lord's Cup" is quite dated. In fact, the provision of the Eucharist under both forms is positively promoted under the new Rite (though we continue to believe that one receives the whole Christ whether one receives under one form or both).
An excellent point; one which is overlooked in the secular comparative religions texts: The more humans meddle, the faster religion devolves.
Re: "Non-Catholics don't have a "Eucharist"."
Anglicans would disagree, I bet Orthodox would disagree as well. I agree with you only because of my Catholic understanding of the word but they would not.
What a potent statement that is.
Folks are telling themselves fairy tales these days, order to justify what God does not justify.
Long before the 'hey I'm god' actually occurs though, the attempt is made to depose the One True God by a death of 10,000 denials and equivocations.
To the person who is able to see this, it is a horror as they witness each divine injunction being hollowed out.
And that is the sheer truth, AlbionGirl. Divine injunctions may not be gratuitously "hollowed out," without creating real, gave damage to the world in which we perceive ourselves as living.
This ties in well with the Oden Rebirth of Orthodoxy issues I have been so inspired by in the past year.
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.