Posted on 01/29/2006 5:25:55 AM PST by NYer
At the same time every single statement used to back any element of dogma can be understood in a multiplicity of ways. Confession, by the Congregation, or by an Individual, falls into that category.
Still, it's the doctrine of "Penance and Confession" where we encounter some differences between Protestant and Catholic understandings (glossing over the physical differences between the two Confessions of course).
When it comes to the sub-element of "penance" itself, we must ask that if Jesus atoned for our sins forever and ever (as stated repeatedly throughout the Scriptures), then what is it we, as humans, are adding to His atonement that was needed when we do penance?
Are we God?
To the Protestant mind, "penance" is a man-made, non-Scripturally based doctrine. To the Catholic mind, it's implicit in the thought that men are and must be ultimately responsible for their own salvation (otherwise freely offered by God).
Clearly the Catholic thought on the matter is to avoid the heresy of Antinomianism (one of its many spellings, which is the idea that God foregives everything). The Protestant doesn't particularly care whether or not some other heresy is involved as long as the Catholic is telling him he is a heretic for participating in Congregational confession alone.
Anyway, something like that ~
I suspect most Protestants have, by now, backed away from pure Calvinism (God saves you whether you want it or not) into something more like Catholicism (God saves you, but you gotta' do something). So, neither of us are in any real fear of being accused of Antinomianism.
BTW, if I read the New American Bible, the official version authorized by the Pope, it grants me indulgences for so many minutes of reading. That happens whether or not I believe anyone is authorized, by God, to offer indulgences! The presumption is somone somewhere is keeping track of what I do ~ and that they care ~ and boy will I be in trouble with Martin Luther someday showing up with all those indulgences hanging off me.
Considering that Martin Luther is doing some serious time in purgatory for his part in splitting the Church, I think he will be eternally grateful for any and all indulgences sent his way. :)
BTW, I don't see penance as the major stumbling block, but apostolic succession. Penance (perhaps oversimplified) is overcoming evil with good. Think restitution. Apostolic succssion on the other hand may be the greatest stumbling block to a reunited Church. How many Protestant churches do you know of who are willing or even open to accepting the authority of Rome? Yet this is what will have to happen in order for the Church to once again be "one" and for all Christians to be able to receive the spiritual food of Christ's body and blood, soul and divinity. My Catholic two cents.
I disagree. Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit would teach us all things. That promise was not to a select few.
I think it's a pretty minor issue these days ~ but back in the time of the Reformation/Counterreformation/ReligiousWars it was really, really, really major. People got killed over it.
Still, in contrast, the Religious Wars (in France, between the Catholics and Protestants) pale in comparison to the 30 Years War Phase II that followed ~ that was, more or less, between the Evangelicals and the Lutherans over what seems to have been the order of worship at Sunday services.
Now you talk about killing people, they nearly wiped out Germany over that one!
Proving, of course, that Protestants can, if properly motivated, put the Catholics to shame when it comes to religious legalism.
Most of them would have been quite comfortable sitting in the front pew at most Protestant churches on Sunday ~ on the other hand, they all believed in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Definitely a roadblock. I don't even buy into the idea of having a Minister General in my own church. Religious hierarchies have problems best avoided by not having the hierarchy.
My impression is the Holy Spirit has led us to that point of view. So far, He has neglected leading the Pope down that road ~ but I suspect He'll get around to it someday.
There are ancient manuscripts which were never part of any canon that contain passages that come alive within me. Likewise there are times regular people say things which ring with clarity and joy in the Spirit – and conversely times when the words seem to set off an alarm within and I can read no further. An example of the former was a little blue haired lady in church who once said off-the-cuff when the minister was preaching about Peter’s sinking in his attempt to walk across the water to Jesus that, simply, ’sinking was not his job’. An example of the latter was the recent posting of 95 theses against the Catholic church by Matthew Fox, a former priest (in an attempt to mimic Luther). A quick glance showed that his “doctrine” denied the deity of Jesus Christ – it was painful to read anything further.
The first is the fruits of the Spirit. As Jesus said in Matthew 7 a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. In Galatians 5, Paul names the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. If I don’t see all of these fruits in the life of the speaker, the message is ignored.
Secondly, I apply the Berean test spoken of in Acts 17; testing everything said against the whole of Scripture. The message must agree. And finally, I pray and meditate on the statement and ask the indwelling Spirit to lead me to Truth. He has never, ever disappointed me.
All of this is secondary of course to the test of the spirits – if the speaker denies the deity of Christ, I cannot endure anything else he says.
The bottom line is that I want to know what God says, not what I think He says or what someone else thinks He says.
Peter had a direct Spiritual revelation from the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord (Matthew 16:17) and he walked with Jesus and learned directly from Him, as did John and the others. But the revelation Paul received was quite literally blinding and his walk was different:
Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. – Galatians 1:15-19
And it could be that many young Christians are most certain of their own sensory perceptions, reason or are more comfortable trusting the wisdom of others. Organized church congregations, hierarchies and assemblies serve that need extremely well. Families and friends have served that purpose as well in those countries where Christianity was outlawed for so long.
And it could be that as we walk with the Lord for many years, we sense that an assembly has occurred when two or more Christians meet in casual conversation and speak of Christ – whether in person, over the phone or even on the internet. A lot of threads around here are very much like Bible study groups, small chapels and prayer services.
And indeed, the Catholic church has a different way of looking at Mary than many other churches. IMHO, the main difference between the confessions amounts to focus. The Pentecostals for instance focus on prophesy and other gifts of Pentecost, the Baptists on the Berean test, etc.
As we were discussing on another thread, to me it is like a diamond with seven facets. What one sees depends on which facet is in front of him. Thus what we see as differences may be no more than an aspect – it is still the same diamond and the same Light.
I affirm that Mary was the chosen (prepared, consecrated) woman through whom Messiah, the Son of David came--He who had been promised to the first woman, Eve. Every woman in all of Israel's history knew such a woman would be chosen, but not when, and few knew how. This is Mary's exaltation and singular honor. It was also her exclusive, unique, and very heavy burden.
God Himself made this concretely possible--He alone is the Potter, we the vessels, prepared for His Purposes:
[F]or the Mighty One has done great things for me—I am sorry that Mary is "deemphasized almost at times to the point of contempt." This should not be, and would not be (in the balance of the created order) were she not in other regards esteemed as "Coredemptress," "Mother of God," or "Queen of Heaven."
holy is his name.
Mary's testimony, Luke 1:49
Mary is the very nexus between the Old and New Testaments.
I see Jesus bestowing this honor on John the baptizer in the Gospel of Matthew and also in Mark.
She is the model of perfected human purity: She emptied herself of all mortal aims and purposes other than to magnify the Lord, and to do His will....She never left His side.
As honored among women as she was, Mary also stumbled on the Rock of Offense:
Then Jesus' mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, "Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you."By this he did not mean, "Hey, John -- take care of Mom for me, 'cause I'm out of here""Who are my mother and my brothers?" he asked.
Then he looked at those seated in a circle around him and said, "Here are my mother and my brothers! Whoever does God's will is my brother and sister and mother."
Mark 3:31-35 (also related in Matthew and Luke)
The verses in John 19:26-27 read:
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!Because "behold thy mother" is followed by "from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home," I conclude just what you deny.Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
Perhaps this will always be so. May the One God Who Is Father of All lead both you and I into perfect understanding. May our reverent interpretation of sacred things not lead to the abandonment of the most sacred which is love. Amen.
Good morning, dear sister! I do agree with you that John the Baptist is the "line of transmission" from the Old to the New Testament on the spiritual side of the Incarnation. But Jesus was fully man, fully human also, just as he was fully God. On the mortal side of the Incarnation, I think that Mary is the line of transmission, because among the Jews, one's geneological heritage is transmitted through the mother.
Them be my thoughts, anyhoot!
Amen on the human bloodline: Jesus is the Son of David, through Mary!
Important if you are following Jesus earthy body that died(as some do).. But Jesus father is important if you're following Jesus Spirit that lived.. Jesus spent his time in that earthy body trying to convince all that he was more than that.. Actually he tried to convince ALL that ((WE)) are more than that(our bodies) too.. Some do indeed worship or even lament Jesus earthy body and miss the Spirit completely..
According to Paul Jesus earthly body was of no account.. its his NEW Body that matters.. You can tell fairly quickly whether someone is stuck on stupid with Jesus earthly body or seek and see his New Body.. He does have a New Body.. I've seen it.. Mary the mother Jesus draws to the earthy body, The father of Jesus draws to the heavenly one.. the new Body..
Its quite profound this imagery.. I don't see venerating Mary to be beneficial.. in any way.. and quite negative actually in several ways.. Buts thats just me.. There is something about it that offends me.. I don't know what, its visceral.. Almost like when saying, "Its raining cats and dogs", watching one run to the window to see pets falling from the sky.. like that..
The Body of Christ is real indwelt by the Spirit of Christ.. his earthly body was merely a vehicle for his personal Spirit, for a time.. until the freight train was constructed.. As he labored hard and for 33 years to explain to us.. Pity that some venerate the dead(stuck on stupid) and deny the living Christ and his body.. Like some venerated Moses(Jews) but missed the vehicle of the living Christ.. and are NOT on board the Christ Train(his body) to the heavenlies.. Veneration of mary offends me viscerally.. deeply.. I don't know why.. But then I don't give out the tickets..
Thank you for recognizing this. The Spirit of God is not behind every thought we have. And certainly, He doesn't speak to us only through emotional spasms and good feelings. Often times, He speaks to us much more reservedly - as a whisper. It takes proper discernment to figure out His will.
we can receive great assistance via the collective stored wisdom and tradition of the Church.
What is sad is so many people refuse to read or accept their wisdom on Christ, BUT, these same people will say they believe the Nicean Creed, or some of the Councils. There seems to be a disconnect here. It is important that we, as Christians, do not forget our heritage. We receive our paradigm from the teachings passed down from our ancestors. To better understand it, we should not discard all traditions merely because Christ mentions traditions in a negative sense when Pharisees twist traditions away from God.
There is no church-less Christianity with validity. The Lord WANTS us to work through the difficulties of interpersonal conflicts, so we can demonstrate that through His power unity can be achieved. And when the world sees our love for one another, then they will believe that God truly did send Jesus Christ.
Good points. A Church-less Christianity is not Christianity of the Scriptures, nor of our 2000 year heritage. God desired that we come to Him through and with other people. "Jesus and me" alone is not the Gospel message.
Brother in Christ
Groovey.. Might give a Baptist the warm fuzzies.. but I'm no Baptist, or Roman Catholic or protestant even.. or even a christian.. Its not about what I believe its about who I am..
I'm a member of the Body of Christ and therefore part of Christ.. what I believe is secondary to that..
Don't know where you were going with this?.. Dogma can easily fly in the face of reality.. and usually does..
Brother, we are in solid agreement on these points.
That is very true. God comes to us in many ways, some "oral" and others "written". God's Spirit works within us to help us discern His will for us. What I have in mind, however, is people who separate themselves from the Apostle's teachings as given by their successors:
He (God) made known to me the mystery (as I have briefly written already, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ), which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel, of which I became a minister according to the gift of the grace of God given to me by the effective working of His power. (Eph 3:3-7)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers, For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Eph 4:11-13)
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also (2 Tim 2:2)
There are many examples such as these - examples that show that the Church was to teach people God's Word and interpret it for others when people disagreed. How are we to be humble like Christ when we pick and choose what to believe and follow? The idea of "self-teaching" by the Spirit was unknown to the writers of Scripture. THEY believed that the Word was to be proclaimed, not read and interpreted outside of the Apostles' teachings
The apostles were not writing doctrines of men. I know this because the indwelling Spirit confirms that He is the author and they were merely scribes. As for those who do not consider Matthew to be inspired by God, not everyone has “ears to hear” or “eyes to see” as Christ explains in Matthew 13 and Paul further discusses in Romans 11.
The reason why you know that Matthew is the Word of God is because the Church has confirmed it without doubt. As you noted above, there are many writings that can also inspire within us love, can be uplifting, and so forth. But that alone is not enough to know "this is from God", because we are fallen humans - we cannot make such decisions infallibly. We need an objective authority. And Christ has given us one through the Apostles and their successors.
The bottom line is that I want to know what God says, not what I think He says or what someone else thinks He says.
We all should. But by relying on ourselves and what may or may not be the Spirit "speaking" to you inside, you are relying on a merely subjective means of identifying God. Discernment is not easy, and often requires others to help us, whether it is other friends, Scriptures, extra-Scriptural writings, and so forth. We rarely act within a vacuum, we are social beings. Proverbs 3:5-7 mentions that we should not place our faith in our own perceptions - spiritual direction is not only a private matter.
The bottom line is that it is ok to be different.
My intent was not to question how you come to God or walk in the Spirit, but how we identify the various letters available and say "that is Scritpure" and "that one is not Scriptures". Without the Church, we all would not have one New Testament. Forgetting that the Church infallibly declared the entire Canon of the Bible is dangerous - because then we forget that we base our ideas on what God says on an unknown source. Thus, it is too easy to forget that this same source believed that its Scriptures were meant to say such things as "the Eucharist is the literal Body of Christ". Private interpretation does not lead to the Spirit of Truth, but contentions (Prov 13:10)
Regards
I see Jesus bestowing this honor on John the baptizer in the Gospel of Matthew and also in Mark.
Good morning, dear sister! I do agree with you that John the Baptist is the "line of transmission"
from the Old to the New Testament on the spiritual side of the Incarnation. But Jesus was fully man,
fully human also, just as he was fully God. On the mortal side of the Incarnation,
I think that Mary is the line of transmission, because among the Jews,
one's genealogical heritage is transmitted through the mother.
Them be my thoughts, anyhoot!
271 posted on 01/31/2006 7:17:35 AM MST by betty boop
You are correct in that the linage is through Mary from David.
However because among the Jews,
one's geneological heritage is transmitted through the mother.
It absolutely not scriptural; it is Rabbinical only.
In order to understand how Miriam can pass David's throne to Y'shua,
you need to review Zelophehad and his daughters
in Numbers 26, 27,36 Joshua 17 & 1 Chronicles 7
This is the only exception for daughters inheriting in the Holy Word of G-d.
B’shem Y’shua
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.