Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Extreme was not a good choice of a word in that sentence. I meant to correct Kosta by saying that Protestants believe the opposite end of the scale - the other extreme. On one extreme is man incapable of receiving grace - and on the other is man's total reliance on it to do everything. I think I have correctly stated your belief by saying that Man needs God to do everything on the plane of salvation. Man does not cooperate at all. Is this correct?
Regards
Q183: For whom are we to pray?
A183: We are to pray for the whole church of Christ upon earth; for magistrates, and ministers; for ourselves, our brethren, yea, our enemies; and for all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter; but not for the dead, nor for those that are known to have sinned the sin unto death."
"Then said his servants unto him, What thing is this that thou hast done? thou didst fast and weep for the child, while it was alive; but when the child was dead, thou didst rise and eat bread. And he said, While the child was yet alive, I fasted and wept: for I said, Who can tell whether GOD will be gracious to me, that the child may live? But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." -- 2 Samuel 12:21-23 AV
"But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." -- Hebrews 10:12-14
It puzzles me that if God had wanted His Bible to clearly agree with the Tradition practiced, that He would have arranged for the two to more easily work together, without all the stressing and straining.We are not Muslims. We do not believe that God dictated the books of the New Testament word for word to amanuenses. The books which the Church later collated into the New Testament were divinely inspired, but written by imperfect men for specific purposes, as IQ has pointed out.
Rather than ask why the New Testament is not a systematic theology book, a better question is why, for 1500 years, nobody expected it to be.
This time, despite numerous examples to the contrary, you are so far off the road, you left the planet. Please call 9-1-1.
Oh, I see. Apostolic succession simply one who follows the Church's teaching. Thus, if the Church states something to be true, and if someone preaches what the Church states to be true, then what they say is true, is true once the Church says that what they preach is true.
Got it.
FK, I am flabbergasted! I didn't say that oral tradition was superior to written. Over and over, I have said, at the very best, that oral tradition is EQUAL to written, once determined its source is God. Of course Luke's Gospel is a good thing and it compiled some of the Apostolic Tradition into one location. I never argued THAT! What I argue is that THIS is NOT Sola Scriptura! Think about what you are trying to prove: That the Bible ALONE is enough. Where does Luke even remotely imply that everything besides written Scripture is enough by writing an account??? Do you think that Luke is saying "Now that I have written an orderly account, Theophilus, throw away anything not explicitly within this book"? "Stop doing and believing what you were taught that is not within the pages of THIS book"? You are desperate seeking something that is not there, brother.
Regards
I was merely stating the obvious: without man there is no need for grace. Grace exists because man exist. If we didn't exist, God would have no reason to grant His grace.
If man cannot recieve grace, then what's God's mercy all about? If we cannot do anything on our own, where is our fault and where is the need for mercy? Mercy comes with guilt; and guilt comes from our free will resisting God's.
If everything we do is merely being guided by God, then our evil is not ours really. If we do good, it is only through
thanks for your reply. The article on Intermediate State sounds pretty close to Catholic belief, IMHO.
Oh, yes, I understand what you were saying.
If everything we do is merely being guided by God, then our evil is not ours really. If we do good, it is only through
Yea, I haven't heard a satisfactory answer to that dilemna. And when man is told to persevere, God is really talking about God's perseverance!
Regards
- on some larger beads:
Our Father Who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread
And forgive us our sins as we forgive our debtors
And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one.
- on some larger beads:
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning is now and ever shall be: world without end, amen.
Oh Jesus forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls into heaven, especially those who have most need of Thy mercy
- on small beads
Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you
Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus
Holy Mary, mother of God
Pray for us sinners now and in the hour of our death, amen.
I also repeat the Creed and on occasion the Act of Contrition, on the big heart-shaped bead. I don't think this is precisely how the Rosary is prayed, but this is how I got used to praying it.
I improvise a Grace prayer at meals, usually making reference to the events and situations around the family, and sometimes asking the saint of the day to pray for us.
I often pray to St. Francis whom I ask to teach me to better love my Church, teach me humility and teach me how to handle money (that part works great, as I am habitually broke)
I pray to St. Thomas Aquinas to open my mind to the scripture and to help me with Catholic apologetics that I practice, primarily, here. You'll be the judge how that works.
I pray to St. Michael the Archangel for help in situations of conflict.
I pray to Mary to convert me and my family to the heart of Christ.
I pray to the patron of the church I go to, St. Rose, as I pass her icon.
I do not usually verbalize these last three prayers.
I say "Lord God Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner" every now and then.
Irregularly I go to the weekly Latin Mass, which we conclude by elaborate prayers to Mary for Spiritual wants, Temporal wants, and the Prayer to Mary by St. Alphonsus, which we read from a booklet. They are similar in construction: they ask Mary to plead to Christ to grant us particular graces, be it for our spiritual development, relief, or to die a good death when the time comes. These three are a good material to shock and outrage a Protestant mariophobe, as they are fervent in style, address Mary by her numerous exalted titles, and place her firmly as our co-redeemer and chief dispencer of Christ's grace.
Obviously, the greatest prayer is said on my and everyone else's behalf by the priest in the course of the liturgy of the Mass.
These prayers play an important role in my formation as a Christian and I recommend something similar to everyone seeking to deepen his relationship with God.
A good prayer habit can be formed by following the Church calendar on the Internet and studying the lives of saints that fall on each day. Freeper Salvation can put you on her daily devotional thread. Beliefnet has a Saint of the Day e-mail newsletter.
There are difference between the two views.
God telling Moses, "Take full vengeance for the sons of Israel on the Midianites; afterward you will be gathered to your people" (Num 31:2) is a source of comfort. God will gather us all to our own people immediately and we will be at rest. It is not a time of separation but of fulfillment.
If you reject the church, apostolic succession and tradition, then you must rely solely on what you have left. Sola Scriptura.
But, what remains is actually sola scriptura as I read it. This then becomes identified as the Word of God.
”I want my teaching to be unjudged by everyone, also by all angels. For since I am certain of it, I will be your judge and also that of the angels, as St. Paul says (Gal. 1:8), so that the one who does not accept my teachings may not become blessed. For it is God’s and not mine; therefore, my court is also God’s and not mine.”
--Martin Luther
Thanks. I'd forgotten the difference in the view of Purgatory. What is the same is you do not have soul sleep found elsewhere.
Unless it was EWTN, this variety is best avoided.
I do not think the mainstream Catholic view is that Mary did not experience death, but it might be allowable piety.
I do not think that the doctrine of Immaculate Conception has any consequence to the Orthodox mariology, as it merely shifts the point at which she achieved sinlessness to the moment of her conception, while in the East that point remains undefined, but, from what I hear, is typically thought of as happening at or before her presentation at the temple. I am not the one to ask, -- Jo has the best grasp on the Catholic doctrine this side of the Alps.
Your premise is incorrect. The assurance of salvation exists following baptism, and/or following sacramental absolution of sin, till a mortal sin is comitted.
If you wish to caricature this as ping-pong assurance, you may. I would, however, add that for a good Catholic avoidance of mortal sin is quite achievable, because he draws on the grace of God weekly at Mass and is strengthened by the Eucharist. While many suffer through recurring setbacks, just as many have a successful life journey on their way to sanctification.
I recall discussing this before.
See Jo's 5689. That was the normal arrangement for a temple virgin. The evidence of her intention to remain virgin through her life is evident from the way she responds to the annunciation in Luke 1, "how is it possible since I know not man?". A girl about to enter a conventional marriage would not respond like that, she would say "Thank you for foretelling my child's future". She would not be wondering how is she supposed to become a mother.
half-brother" is no problem to me because that is exactly the relationship I claim between Jesus and his "siblings". There is still common blood.
Cousins is also common blood.
How would you define "prevail" without scripture? Today, and if scripture never existed, do you think that global Church membership would be somewhat less, or drastically less?
Prevail means that the Church will lead all faithful souls to Christ as He comes in glory. Scripture is but a tool of the Church in that process. How do you define "prevail" with the scripture?
But Mark identifies Joseph and James as children of Mary Clopas. All Matthew is saying that they were perceived by the crowd as Jesus's brothers in one sense or another. It is, after all, a question and not a statement.
What about this scripture [Matt 1:25]?
It is about the third time you bring this verse up with me alone. It says nothing about what happened after the nativity of Christ. The Greek "eos" does not have the same connotation as "until", as Matthew himself uses it elsewhere to mean "before, and possible after".
From what I have learned on this thread, by the standards of today's Catholicism, the Bible is virtually obsolete as a revelation of faith, ON ITS OWN. The Bible appears to only become useful to anyone, through the prism of the Catholic Church.
The scripture is verified and explained primarily with other scripture, and with linguistics. This is why "all" is not "all", etc. This has been explained to you a dosen times on this thread. Where alternative readings logically exist, but one reading is supported by Tradition for extrascriptural reasons, I pointed it out. For example, there is no scripture to positively say that Mary remained a virgin; the Purgatory is not the only possible explanation of the parable of unmerciful debtor, etc.
There is a certain fallaceous pattern in how you have argued the scripture, at least with me. First, a doctrine is picked with scant scriptural support. Next, I admit that it is something positively known from Tradition but not contradicted by Scripture. Then you rise to the challenge and bring up something in the scripture that could be interpreted your way. I explain that it also can be explained the Catholic way, and back it up with other scripture and linguistics. Then you say "-- But I read it the natural way". At this point the purpose of the exercise is forgotten and we argue about what is the natural reading. But this is not the issue, and in fact what is the natural reading to the 21 century American quite often is not the natural reading to a 1 century Jew anyway. The issue is, -- Is the Catholic reading possible, not -- Is it natural.
Thanks very much for your reply. Is there anything akin to the Communion of Saints in Calvinism?
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.