Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Big topic. As you probably know, the Vatican II never did that, but we can talk of the aftereffects of the Vatican II. No, I personally do not agree with them, and I think most of the abuse of the decrees of the Vatican II will be reversed soon. The Tridentine Latin Mass, the Mass of the Ages, is going to be back. Praying ad orientem is going to become the norm again. However, there is simplicity and beauty in the Novus Ordo. I came to the Church through it, in large part thanks to its plain accessibility. I am certain that Novus Ordo in English will remain most popular for these reasons.
Of course, my perception is skewed because English is filling the same role Latin played in the Western culture. The need for the precision and grace of Latin is probalby greater in other, less sophisticated vernacular languages. I also look to the day when the horrid ICEL translations are corrected and NAS translation shelved.
So you have no scripture to support your assertion that the Jewish people "venerated" (not worshipped) the oxen depicted in the temple? Why am I not surprised?
Please post scripture to back up your assertions, thanks
If you wish to follow the Hebrew canon, that is your choice. I happen to be Christian and read the Christian Canon.
I've already posted the scripture to you, you're refusal to recognize the word of God is all your own.
Please point me to that post, thanks
You continue to confuse proof with persuasion. Also, I did not say that everything the Chruch teaches can be proven from scripture. Sola Fide is scripturally wrong, -- this is why all Protestant arguments to the contrary sidestep and obfuscate. Mariology, on the other hand, is mostly from Tradition and reason, but there are few prooftexts.
Calm down, dear.
The Gentile Christians as can be expected used the septuagint since it was in their language and Rome, in moving to solidify its political and religious power, used it to remove the "jewishness" of the church
Goodness! Alexandrian and Asia Minor Jews were hellenized and spoke only Greek. The Septuagint was originally translated, some two hundred years before Christ, by Jewish scholars, for the Alexandrian Jews who spoke only Greek and could not understand Hebrew Scriptures.
Removing "jewishness" was against 'judaizing' and it had nothing to do with Septuagint.
Like I said, I happen to be Christian and I am only interested in the Christian Canon, as established East and West by the Church. I also have little respect for those who edit the Word of God to suit their theological fantasies.
As a shrink, are you familiar with the phenomenon of loving your spouse friends and relatives as an expression of your love to the spouse?
Of course, and I showed Blogger the relevant scripture a few posts above.
If "Communion Of Saints" does not include this, then what is the Protestant definition of "Communion"?
Could a Reformed state what this definition is?
I thought the Apostle's Creed was part of most Protestant denominations; do you reject this part of the creed; define it differently?
Nothing in Hebrew 7 indicates that Blessed Virgin Mary is not Christ's mother or that we do not know Christ through her only. He did not have two mothers.
If you are curious why Leo XIII said that, perhaps you should read what he said because I am sure he articulated it better than I can. In fact, I will appreciate a link or a full quote with context if you have it as well.
Thank you for your thoughts.
I agree that "churches" are people, not buildings. I just feel that the admonition from Christ is much more specific than not loving God or others. That is His message throughout His ministry.
As Revelation is about revealing and after reading 1:18, I think the "wiggle room" is taken away. Jesus declared:
"I am He that liveth, and was dead; and behold, I am
alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and
of death."
To me, what He says after that statement must be taken to heart and not wiggled with.
His message points out the good these churches and or people do but tells them more will be required. At least, that's how I understand it.
Here is what God says that Mary said about her role. When did God ever say differently?
Luke 1:38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid( bond servant, slave) of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
I do not recall stating or implying or thinking that you said everything the Church teaches can be proven from scripture.I think the point about confusing persuading and proving is well taken. I guess I have been thinking about "proof" in a forensic, and possibly even an evangelical sense, not in the sense of getting to a point where me an my homes all growl, "Word," when I'm done talking, proof not to MY satisfaction, but to someone else's.
And it may be that I don't have an inferiority complex so much as that I am just plain inferior, at least in innerleckshual gifts. I know a lot of seemingly good and pious people who can read the Pauline corpus and James and, seemingly in good faith, construe it differently from the way I do.
Also, I'm a great believer in giving people enough rope. It would be delightful to have one of the Prots here say, "Well Dang! I'm converting tomorrow!" But I'm not staking money on that's happening. But as a result of this thread I have begun to develop what I'm thinking of as a Protestant gestalt, and looking for connections between, say, the idea of the "invisible church" and aversion to the idea of intercession of the saints. I'm beginning to see a suggestion that the IMHO admirable Calvinist emphasis on the Sovereignty of God is in some sense similar to the little I know about Islamic theology, and to wonder about that. Interesting that both strands are VERY anti-"image". I get this consistent perception of a binary kosmos with God over THERE and everything else over HERE and a great gulf fixed between. While I on the other hand think of God as dwelling with us and of "taking of the Manhood into God, as Athanasius saith, and of a great celestial dance of yielding and accepting, of giving and receiving, of thanking and praising forever, and of that dance frequently if not always leaking from eternity into the present, from God's "now" into ours.
Besides, what started this flurry between us was my saying:
I am now coming to question the possibility of proving anything from Scriptureto which you responded, "No, I disagree."
You mean I'm not questioning it? I made no assertion about proving this or that from Scripture. I declared that I was questioning.
Being told I have an inferiority complex and am confused about the difference between proof and persuasion will not stop me from questioning. And in my comment about their studying Scripture longer than we, I was being polite and taking them at their word, since they say so frequently and eagerly that we are ignorant of Scripture.
I don't know how to say this in a way that won't be misunderstood: Back off. Take it easy. Try a little circumspection. (I should take my own advice.) I think you misunderstood both what I was saying and why I was saying it, and were a tad abrupt in taking me to task for it.
We know Christ only through her? How does that work?
The "wiggle room" I'm referring to concerns my musings beyond the revelations of God the Father in (1) the Person of Jesus Christ, (2) the Person of the indwelling Holy Spirit, (3) Scriptures and (4) Creation.
But that is my personal epistemology - how I know what I know and how certain I am that I actually know it. Truth for me is only contained within the revelations - everything else, including sensory perception and reasoning are uncertain, e.g. "musings."
Certainty and Spiritual knowledge can vary widely among Christians - according to God's will and our efforts to "work out our own salvation." But we shouldn't be anxious about it. After all, doubting Thomas was an apostle too.
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.