Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
And Does John Damascene write a hymn or WHAT?
You know, two nights ago was the eclipse (which I did not see,) And the next full moon will be the "the first full moon after the vernal equinox" on the Sunday after which .... and it just thrills me. It's still cold here, but the maple buds are beginning to swell.
The nights will be darker and darker, and then moonless. And then inexorably the moon will march towards brightness. And the catechumens and candidates, one of whom I have the privilege of sponsoring, will be admitted to the full mystery.
Pagan festival? I don't think so.
In light of what you've written, please explain this:
31 And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. 32 And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. 34 Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
36 Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. 37 Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? 39 Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? 40 And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
41 Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. 43 I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. 44 Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? 45 Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
46 And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
-- Matthew 25:31-46
I hope you are doing well after your surgery. I also hope the Vicodin isn't causing you, or me, confusion. :-)
No, Ignatius didn't need to have a proper name for it and he certainly didn't call it the Catholic Church. That was my only point.
I used to be a member of a Church called "The First Religious Society". Since it was a Unitarian Church calling it "Religious" might have been a stretch. :-)
Once again, I hope you are doing well.
Who made the final judgment? James, fyi.
For all of the talk of the Lord's "brothers and sisters" remember these things:
1. There is absolutely NOTHING in scripture that suggests that the Blessed Virgin Mary had any other children.
2. On the Cross, Jesus entrusted His mother to the apostle John. Had Mary had other children, this would have been a sinful violation of Judaic law. Christians are in complete agreement that the Lord NEVER sinned.
3. Because there is no established teaching on Joseph, it is quite possible that James and the others were his children from a prior marriage, in this case it would have been perfectly acceptable for Christ to entrust His mother to someone else. It is further possible that they were close relatives who were orphaned and raised by the Holy Family as if they were their own, in this case it would not be at all unusual for them to be referred to as the Lord's brethren.
4. Neither James nor Jude make any claim in their epistles that they or anyone else is a sibling of Jesus.
5. The perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mother WAS NEVER questioned until centuries AFTER THE START OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. If you want to criticize the traditions of the Church, go ahead, but do so knowing that the idea that Mary bore other children is a VERY NEW tradition.
6. Now, I am aware of the argument that for Mary and Joseph to not have sexual relations would be "abnormal." However, the Holy Family was the most decidedly "abnormal" family to have ever lived. When two people have told an angel of God that they are willing to raise the Son of God, it is axiomatic that any expectation of a "normal" life has been forfeited.
7. And finally think about this, had the the Blessed Virgin Mary had other children, it would have created the very real and awkward possibility of a "royal lineage" of direct descendants of the Lord's natural brothers and sisters.
Thank you! :-)
I challenge you to read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church." The Catechism is based on Holy Scripture for starters, so you would then see that this article is so full of lies and distortions that it is unworthy of debate. By posting this article, you have shown your ignorance and that you choose to believe lies instead of finding out the facts.
It is quite interesting that several times when I have challenged Protestants to actually read the Catechism, no one has taken me up on it. I wonder why? What are Protestants afraid of?
By the way, I was brought up Presbyterian, so I know quite well every Protestant objection to the Catholic faith, and all are based on lies and untruths. I choose to believe Truth and not Falsehood.
well, all RIGHTY then! ;-)
I also hope the Vicodin isn't causing you, or me, confusion. :-)
I refuse to let some drug take credit for my confusion. I achieved this through my own efforts.
If you start with the premise that there is ONE Church "really" (and visibly) then for us Roaming Calflicks to call ourselves such and to adopt some such name as a designator is just an accomodation to the worlds persistent delusion that there is more than one Church.
In fact the whole use of "designators" has a different purpose. "A" church is named after its city. It's what I would think of as the Church IN Richmond, and we know it's "THE" church because it's in communion with THE Church in Rome. Designators like "Catholic" or "Byzantine" are used to deal with the painful facts of schism and offical estrangement.
In the universe where the notion of numerous "denominations" is one reality lying athwart the reality of the "True" "invisible" church whose only members are already saved, denominational names have to do with a doctrine or polity (or history of schism): "Episcopal" ,"Berean", "Baptist", "Lutheran". But our "name" is differently intended.
Is that ANY clearer? I confess that myve the vicodin and sleeplessness are finally kicking in. I hope somebody can say it mo' better.
Excellent, concise list, thanks for posting.
If you can think of anything to add, please feel free.
>On the Cross, Jesus entrusted His mother to the apostle John. Had Mary had other children, this would have been a sinful violation of Judaic law. Christians are in complete agreement that the Lord NEVER sinned.
Being no expert in Judaic law, I cannot say personally this is true. And I have no way of proving it externally, if ever questioned. Thus, proof of this statement would make the list, IMO, a perfect defense of the doctrine of perpetual virginity.
Even without it though, it's still an excellent resource for apologetics, thanks again for posting.
You pray to her and that is worship reserved for God alone. There are catholics and some catholic churches who believe she can forgive sins. Catholics also believe she a mere mortal woman has never sinned. Of course in a religion where tradition overrules the very Word of God, these heresies are bound to happen.
I have seen threads like this here and elsewhere before. I have never seen a catholic acknowledge the facts/truth shown in one of these threads yet. I have seen catholics one on one come to realize the teachings of the RCC is not biblical though. It must be that most catholics just don't want to embrace the truth found in the Word of God, they love their religion over all else.
In the defense of the many fine Protestant I know, I think that many of the objections started out as bold-faced lies; however, they have been told so many times for so long that most Protestants simply began to accept them as fact. So, when a Protestant says something today, it may not be so much based on any bias, but simply on what they have always believed.
The bigotry comes when AFTER the misconception is demonstrated to be false, the person still repeats it.
Asking her to pray for us is VERY DIFFERENT than praying to her. Haven't you ever asked anyone to pray for you?
There are catholics and some catholic churches who believe she can forgive sins.
ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE!
Catholics also believe she a mere mortal woman has never sinned.
Yes she was mortal, just as we are. And yes she was conceived free from sin. Do YOU not believe it is possible for God to conceive someone free from sin?
Of course in a religion where tradition overrules the very Word of God, these heresies are bound to happen.
Name ONE tradition that overrules Scripture. And who are you to define heresy? The Lord gave Peter and through him the Church the authority to "bind and loose" sin and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.
As for the rest of what you wrote, I will pray that you are one day lead to the Church that our Lord founded and not some denomination founded by a man sometime after the early 16th Century.
There are strict Mosaic laws dealing with this, I am at my office, otherwise I could provide references.
Perhaps someone else could help out.
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.