Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
Very candid reply, I appreciate it.. but I belief all christian churchs are clubs.. So its ok with me than the RCC and other ortho churchs consider themselves special.. but so do some reformed churchs.. "They" can consider themselves special as far as I am concerned..
After all Jesus didn't forbid clubs.. But be candid myself I reject the job security of Apostle succession.. Jesus didn't allow the Apostle to select another.. i.e. Mattias to replace Judas.. Jesus chose selected and groomed Saul(Paul) himself.. Nothing ever came of Mattias apostleship..
I know, Easy for me to say me being a heretic apostate like I am.. My freedom is unlimited.. Hard to give that up..
It was a dark rainy night when the Holy Spirit came to me(in my sheep pen) (John ch 10) and motioned and called me out of there.. At first I acted like I didn't hear him but after he got my attention be beckoned me OUT.. It was scary but I sheepishly wander out of the sheep pen.. Only to be amazed at the beautiul pasture outside.. getting me to go back in that sheep pen well you'd have to drag me in.. its dirty in their.. Them sheep have nasty stuff all over their hooves and in their wool.. and it smells like sheep..
Im ok outside with my shepherd Ps 23..
This is not the self-understanding of the Catholic Church, and in fact it reminds me of the Donatist heresy. It may be a good description of some Protestant communities of faith, but you will have to ask them.
I, too, am joyful as can be in the pasture. (Psalms 23)
They are both clubs.. i.e. sheep pens..
I didnt mention the goat pens.. implied but not specified in John ch 10.. Because there are many goat pens.. i.e. Buddist, Hindu, Tau, Animism, Islam, Spiritualism and thousands more, like that..
I, of course, believe the opposite. :) But on the Deuterocanonical books I would like to ask what specific and Uniquely Catholic (or Apostolic) beliefs are found there, but not in what I consider to be scripture? To my knowledge, purgatory is one, but the Orthodox reject that, as we do. (I think they sort of meet you half way, though. :) I can't recall the Orthodox distinction.) Anyway, my working belief has been that the Deuts really do not go a long way in defining our differences because you guys almost never quote them to me. You will quote the Fathers and you will quote what I call scripture, and you will quote the Catechism, but there is almost nothing from the Deuts. I just ask myself: why is that?
We think there's only one.
I would venture that even those who have, or who think they have, an intimate personal relationship with IHS might be in error about certain aspects of the truth of Him, and some more seriously in error than others.
So even if I stipulate sheep pens for the time being, then I'd want to ask if some are better pens than others, in your view
(Naturally, I think that God handled the content of the Bible.) Now, on the one hand we have the perfectly good idea that men, or even bodies of men, will and do grow in faith. They are sanctified. On the other hand, we have "always and everywhere believed". How do you reconcile these?
We have only one incident of Jesus actually writing anything mentioned in the Bible, and He wrote in the dust. Is that not of significance? The Bible does not have anyone writing anything that came to be in it during the life of Jesus. Is that not of significance?
That depends on whether we say the Bible is a work of men, or a work of God through men. If we say the latter, then all of your above, ......... well .......... goes away. :)
The Apostolic view is that Scripture contains all the truths that God wanted us to know through the Bible. Scriptures do not contradict the Church of Jesus, since the Church of Jesus decided on the content of the Bible, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
OOOPS! Good start, bad finish. :) Yes or no, does man determine what God's revelation to man is?
Jesus left us His Church, commissioned at Pentecost by the Holy Spirit. No words, no parchments, no books.
I don't understand. The written word should not threaten you. I think much of your (collective) faith is based on the written words of the Fathers. Those words appear to be OK with you, but you appear to have a problem with the authority of the words that God actually authenticated.
The short answer is, because it is no authority to you, and would not define the Catholic views with precision as the Catechism does.
Off the top of my head, among the Deuterocanonicals we find the clearest textproof for prayers for the dead (for the Purgatiory itself we are fine with 1 Corinthians 3), the freedom of will (Sirach 15:14), the concept of the communion of saints, guardian angel, demonic possession and exorcism in Tobias.
Whatever...
I believe Tobias played an important part in the conversion of my wife, who, as a former Protestant, was rather familiar with scripture but had never read it. I knew that it must have had quite an effect on her when I noticed her crying while she was reading it.Although it is a rather short story, is crucially important to our faith in so many ways. It is the only place in scripture where the Archangel Raphael is mentioned. We also see the earliest scriptural account of a man performing an exorcism. The book of Tobias shows clearly how heavenly beings hear the prayers of the faithful on earth and will petition God on our behalf. The coming of Christ is prophesized by Tobias the elder. It teaches how good works play a part in our salvation, and how prayer, fasting and almsgiving can bring redemption. The book of Tobias also imparts the Catholic concept of the guardian angel.
How the Protestants could have, without any authority whatsoever, removed this beautiful and revealing work from their scripture is as mind boggling as it is criminal.
Thanks for proving me right.
You always think you’re right, so I’ll let you live with that delusion.
Of course there are some pens better than others.. but better is a judgement call.. its an observation.. Some dont see too good.. others see things that are not there.. yet others.. are blind.. Some sheep are not too smart.. i.e. Mormans. JW's ect..
Sheep are not called to be smart they are called to be sheep.. i.e. Apostles argueing which would be greatest in heaven.. Sheep argueing over which pen is best is an old story.. There are even pens within pens.. i.e. orders.. monkdoms, denominations etc..
I tell you the sheep pen metaphor is deep.. The more you identify the characters and operators in the metaphor the deeper it gets.. So more more for US that have observed the prolifieration of the schism of christian identity.. The sheep pens are real.. clubs.. call them churchs.. But be advised the word church in greek means the CALL OUT ONES.. not the penned up ones.. Called out of WHAT?.. read John 10 and you see called out of what..
I know, I know it goes against othodoxy and extant lore but I didnt devise the metaphor.. Do you think the lord was embedding future things, even a prophecy?.. I do.. You know TO KEEP SOME OF US from going even more nutz.. and becomeing cynical..
But the reason I'm jumping in is that I would not put the canonization of Scripture precisely as MarkBsnr puts it.
And I'm sure you can see why I wouldn't answer this question:
Yes or no, does man determine what God's revelation to man is?
And would take exception if I were forced to answer it as a n'ostile witness. (Mother was English; lots of Cockney jokes in my house.)
Instead of explaining my objection negatively I'd say in positive terms that the Holy Spirit operating through the decision making organ(s) of the Church recognizes the work of the Holy Spirit in Scripture (as said earlier, as handed down, edited, blah blah).
The problem, from my POV is that the Protestant weltanschaaung has what feel like too extreme, even artificially extreme dichotomies - Tradition v. Scripture, Faith v. Works, Merit v. Grace, God v. "institutions of men". it's not simply for cuteness that I say: Scripture IS a tradition, the queen of traditions; Faith IS a Work - enabled and directed by God; Merit is only possible if it is graciously given by God -- it's a kind of grace, essentially.
So the answer I'd like to give is clearly God determines what revelation is. And he not only determines it (since it is HIS act of self-disclosure) but he sends the Spirit to men so that they can see what the Spirit is doing elsewhere.
And to back up the final two clauses I do the riff on promises to the Church and apostles and all.
You wrote:
“You always think you’re right, so I’ll let you live with that delusion.”
With you I haven’t been wrong. I don’t want you to live with your delusions. I want better for you than that.
Im down with that too.. The church/flock in John 10 is outside of the sheep pens.. The Lord calls to them they come out toward/following his voice into "THE FLOCK".. So it seems there is only on church/flock.. Yes there is one flock.. You really cant call those in the sheep pen a flock except as a flock of the psuedo shepherds in the sheep pens.. Read the metaphor there are 'shepherds that go into the pens.. but the real shepherd is outside calling some out.. Some sheep appear to be deaf.. and cant really hear the psuedo shepherds either..
Theres many of Jesus' metaphors untouched as metaphors..
Like the metaphor of the talents.. but Im into John 10 currently.. these metaphors are deep Dawg.. DEEP..
First I don't think you are using the pen image the way the Lord was -- and we can have some fun with that.
But the second and more important (to me) was that I wasn't asking if the sheep in the pens were better, but if the pens themselves were better. Despite my many virtues and enviable characteristics as catalogued in the earlier post, I don't think ->I, moiself<- am better than you. I might claim, though, that I have better accommodations.
I know.. its not whether the pens are good or bad but that the lord himself is outside the pens.. Those in the pens (all of them) are insulated from the lord.. estranged from him.. The message being how close to want to be with the lord.. Even the "best" pen if there be such a thing the lord is on the outside.. thats the message..
The truth is the pen is within us.. People with "like" penmanship group together.. We gravitate toward holding pens till we can hear the lords call.. according to the metaphor.. and come out.. The holding pens are indeed pens for quarantine maybe.. Thats just a supposition of mine but it could be so..
Not at all. Christ told +Peter that he had an epiphany. But obviously +Peter did not realize what he said. None of the Apostes at that point treated Christ as God Incarnate; they did not pray to Him; nor did they worship Him.
Een after the Resurrection, just before His Ascension, not all believed, as Mat 28:16-17 tells us
In the Jewish mindset of the 1st century Middle East, it was unthinkable that any man, let alone a poor carpenter, could be God, or that it is possible for man to be God.
They also could not find any support of this in their scriptures. Jesus does not fit the "profile" of the Jewish meissiah. Out of seven, He fulfills only one—being Jewish.
Finally, calling someone divine other than the invisible God was punishable by death. Christians could not, even if they wanted to, preach divine Christ.
So, it was a leap of incredible faith for any man in those days in Israel to see Him as God-Incarnate, as one Person, fully divine and fully human, including His own disciples.
It is only later, towards the end of the century, that His divinity becomes fully revealed, which is why +John wrote his Gospel so late. Writing a Gospel that emphasizes Christ's humanity as a Jewish messiah was already covered by the other three Gospels. The revelation of His full divinity was the next step in seeing through the looking glass, dimly, and discerning what was in front of them all along.
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.