Posted on 11/14/2009 1:09:01 PM PST by NYer
NEW YORK, Oct. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A relic of Saint Mary Magdalene, often referred to as the Apostle of the Apostles, is making its first North American tour. The relic, a major piece of her tibia, will be carried in a reliquary to the United States by Father Thomas Michelet, a French Dominican priest. Its first stop is on October 22nd in Gainesville, Georgia at Saint Michael's Catholic Church where it will be venerated all through the night.
The purpose of the tour, which continues through November 30th, and travels to Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, New York and Florida, is to share the holiness of the relic and to tell the story of the saint who is recorded as the first witness to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Father Thomas Michelet is touring with the permission of Bishop Dominique Rey of Frejus-Toulon, France, the relic's home. A letter of authentication from Bishop Rey reports that the relics were hidden at the time of the Saracen invasions and rediscovered in 1279, and have been venerated without interruption ever since.
Richard Borgman, a former Protestant evangelical pastor who experienced a dramatic conversion to Catholicism seven years ago, initiated the tour. His interest in Mary Magdalene began when he and his wife, also a lay missionary, lived with Bishop Dominic Rey below the mountains of Saint Baume, the grotto where Mary Magdalene spent the last 30 years of her life. Saint Baume means holy perfume-- the smell that Mary Magdalene's bones gave off when they were found.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
One additional reflection specially applies to our sick age. The Church teaches us to respect our body:
Can someone explain to me how tearing apart a human skeleton and divvying up the pieces of bone so that a "Saint" can be venerated is showing and teaching respect for our bodies? I get the "icky" feeling, too! Besides, our glorified body will be completely new and incorruptible. No leftover pieces or dust will be incorporated into that glorified body.
Why do you say that??? If baptism requires water, or includes an element of water, why do you put water in the sentence??? Why not just Christians baptize???
Actually it does mean water. I already showed that with Mark 7.
You didn't show anything...You claim that baptiso was used where it wasn't... I showed you that you are wrong...The washing of the hands is not the word baptiso...
When I see a Protestant post something so illogical as that argument (that sacramental baptism has been misunderstood for 2000 years except for a series of very recent sects taht use arguments that defy scripture and common sense) I understand how our nation could have elected Obama.
I believe far more Protestants voted against Obama than did the Catholics...Your argument is meaningless... And I understand your reasoning...The fact that you have to use common sense to interpret the scriptures ought to be a warning signal to you guys...
No one receives the Holy Spirit by getting wet (Catholic baptism)...You can receive the Holy Spirit ONLY when you personally call on the name of the Lord and unite with Him in your heart...And without the Holy Spirit, one must resort to using common sense and logic to try and figure out the scriptures (see the story of the Eunich)...
Some people are filled with the Spirit before baptism...Some are filled after water baptism...These are simple truths that are spelled out in plain language that one should have no trouble understanding that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is NOT automatic just because some guy sprinkles some water on you...Jesus looks at your heart, not your humidity...
It’s really all about this:
“a former Protestant evangelical pastor who experienced a dramatic conversion to Catholicism seven years ago, initiated the tour”
“Jesus looks at your heart, not your humidity.”
Words worth repeating.
It's a "Mystery" to me... ;)
There is something more to it
Encoding copyright 2009 by Frederick Manligas Nacino. Some rights reserved.
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0
http://www.celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/
Absolutely not ... I am quoting the same Scripture you embrace.
If he tells us to forgive 70 x 7, don't you think he forgives even more? Don't answer, just think about it. And remember this verse: What must we do to be saved?
Our Lord is pure love. He is kind and merciful in boundless proportions. That does not eliminate the need for us to be cleansed of our sins. As Catholics, we have the Sacrament of Penance where that occurs. It still required due diligence to confess on a regular basis because of our weak, human nature.
"What must we do to be saved?" Scripture teaches that one’s final salvation depends on the state of the soul at death. As Jesus himself tells us, "He who endures to the end will be saved" (Matt. 24:13; cf. 25:31–46). One who dies in the state of friendship with God (the state of grace) will go to heaven. The one who dies in a state of enmity and rebellion against God (the state of mortal sin) will go to hell.
"believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved." Not believe and go door to door, go to church, give a percentage of your money, never sin again, do lots of good things... and on and on. Just believe. Evidently the Lord I believe in is more giving, forgiving and sheds more grace than a lot of my christian brother's Lord.
Do christians have an absolute assurance of salvation? Consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21). We can, if our lives display a pattern of perseverance and spiritual fruit, have not only a confidence in our present state of grace but also of our future perseverance with God. Yet we cannot have an infallible certitude of our own salvation. There is the possibility of self-deception (cf. Matt. 7:22-23). There is also the possibility of falling from grace through mortal sin, and even of falling away from the faith entirely, for as Jesus told us, there are those who "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13). It is in the light of these warnings and admonitions that we must understand Scripture’s positive statements concerning our ability to know and have confidence in our salvation. Assurance we may have; infallible certitude we may not.
As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13).
You wrote:
“Why do you say that??? If baptism requires water, or includes an element of water, why do you put water in the sentence??? Why not just Christians baptize???”
I wanted it to be clear because we have people here who clearly do not understand what baptism is. After almost 500 years of Protestantism such misunderstandings are inevitable.
“You didn’t show anything...You claim that baptiso was used where it wasn’t... I showed you that you are wrong...The washing of the hands is not the word baptiso...”
Verse 4. You read only verse 3, right? (sigh) This is exactly why Mark 7:3-4 is used to stuy the word baptism. You’ll have to get out a Greek lexikon or interlinear translation to see it. And you missed it. Y-E-A-H.
“I believe far more Protestants voted against Obama than did the Catholics...Your argument is meaningless...”
No, actually my argument is sound. And all those who voted for Obama - no matter what their religion (notice I didn’t say they were Protestants) have been infected by bad reasoning. When someone comes along almost 2,000 years after the fact and says all the orthodox Christians before him were wrong about something as basic as baptism, you know there’s a problem.
“And I understand your reasoning...The fact that you have to use common sense to interpret the scriptures ought to be a warning signal to you guys...”
No, it should be a standard part of interpretation! Logic and common sense are good things, not bad. The fact that most people don’t possess those things today just shows how successful Protestantism has been in establishing relativism and subjectivism as standards today.
“No one receives the Holy Spirit by getting wet (Catholic baptism)...”
Was anyone saved by Christ’s dying on the cross? After all that was physical. A physical body dying on the cross saving souls from hell? If a man can’t receive grace through physical means then none of us can be saved since Christ’s death is what we all believe gave us grace in the first place. Will probably just dismiss this point? Or will you actually deal with it?
“You can receive the Holy Spirit ONLY when you personally call on the name of the Lord and unite with Him in your heart...And without the Holy Spirit, one must resort to using common sense and logic to try and figure out the scriptures (see the story of the Eunich)...”
The Eunuch (please note correct spelling) didn’t have common sense or logic to use. He was Ethiopian. He was not trained in the scriptures and said so - “unless someone guide me”. And then Philip, who had been trained through his years with Christ, the Apostles, and the gift of the Holy Spirit explained the scriptures to him. It’s always common sense to ask someone who knows the scriptures to explain them to you when you don’t understand.
“Some people are filled with the Spirit before baptism...Some are filled after water baptism...These are simple truths that are spelled out in plain language that one should have no trouble understanding that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is NOT automatic just because some guy sprinkles some water on you...Jesus looks at your heart, not your humidity...”
Jesus gave us the gift of baptism to forgiveness of sins. We enjoy that gift.
“Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
“You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ “
Acts 22:15-16.
“who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.”
1 Peter 3:20-22
Big deal. I have two of them.
Of course, nowhere in Scripture does it say that everything God reveled is in Scripture. Here, from Scripture is shown the power of relics:
2Kgs:13:21: "And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet."
Well, I must thank you all for the correction. I got it wrong.
Ping.
“Be it as it may, the fact that the only way these verses can exist without a ‘fix’ is in Greek suggests that Jesus never spoke those words to Nicodemus, because Jews did not converse in Greek.”
If the Aramaic would support Jesus using born again, then no fix is needed. And since Nicodemus interpreted the remarks of Jesus that way, it seems plausible. If verse 6-7 reads, “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’”, then I see no problem with interpreting verses 3-5.
There is also no particular reason to think John was trying for a word for word quote of what Jesus said, or that the comments of Jesus were strictly these words, and these alone. I doubt Jesus spent a mere 10-15 seconds talking to Nicodemus, which is all it would take to read these words. I doubt the Sermon on the Mount is a transcript of what Jesus said, since he spent days there teaching.
What we have is the meaning of what Jesus said to Nicodemus. It is kind of like the email reports I used to send my boss after a meeting...’Lockheed say XYZ is delayed. They may have a fix for X, but YZ have no known fixes at this time’. Trust me, Lockheed Martin didn’t say anything was broken with no fixes - my report to my boss was based on hours of conversation.
With Nicodemus, is it more likely that Jesus talked to him for 15 seconds, or that we have the summary of what Jesus said? We see the same in Acts many times. Someone is quoted, yet the context makes it the summary of hours of conversation or debate.
Part of this comes from my FAITH that God took care to get us what we needed to know. And part of it comes from reading scripture...well, as an adult. The Gospels are not a transcription service, nor are they just some sound bites. They convey the meaning, in the words God wanted them to be conveyed with.
And yes, that is totally a matter of faith, not ‘knowing’. If you’ll note, I don’t try to prove scripture, and in discussions on Canon, I point out that people will either accept or deny the scriptures are inspired.
I’ve seen people try to prove God, or the scripture’s nature to others. From what I’ve seen, folks who become ‘Christians’ on that basis don’t last long before trying some other fad. I guess I’m enough of a Calvinist to think becoming a Christian requires some act of God, not just personal choice, but I’m not enough of a Calvinist to think God forces belief on anyone.
How is that for confused thought on a Sunday morning?!
“No, you baptize someone who wants to be a Christian in water.”
No, someone who wants to be a Christian needs to be baptized with the Holy Spirit. Jesus is said to be the one who baptizes with the Spirit, in contrast to water baptism.
And in Romans 8 we read, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.”
Apart from the indwelling Holy Spirit, there are no Christians.
Water baptism is the outward sign of it, or in some cases, accepting God’s promise of the Holy Spirit soon almost immediately, except for the very first time at Pentecost.
But it happens by grace through faith. Not your parents faith - lots of folks would be saved who are not, if that were the case! Not through your friend’s faith. Yours, or no ones.
What Catholics do is just fine. From the Didache ca. 100 A.D.:
And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
"sprinkling, is not a proper baptism"
It may not look good but it makes one a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.
Regards.
For your scripture citations:
“We shall center our attention on three passages of Scripture that are often placed before us as “clear testimony” to the concept of baptismal regeneration. These passages are Acts 2:38, 22:16, and 1 Peter 3:21.
Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call” (Acts 2:38-39, NIV).
This is probably the most oft-quoted passage in the great baptism debate. Yet, when we read verse 39, we hear again the same concept that we saw above, which Peter himself will assert at a later date (1 Peter 1:2), and that will reappear in the Acts narrative, too (Acts 13:48)—salvation comes through the work of God’s elective choice, not the actions or plans of men. Baptism does nothing for those who are not called of God. But, one might say, what if one is called of God? Does this passage then not say that baptism is for the remission of sins?
A tremendously large number of interpretations have been set forth on this passage over the years. We believe the simplest and most consistent manner of approach is to ask a question that is frequently not asked at all: we here have a short snippet of what was obviously a longer sermon by Peter. Does Peter elsewhere tell us, in plain language, how our sins are remitted, how we are cleansed from our burden of guilt? Certainly! We began our article with the quotation of 1 Peter 1:18-19, where Peter directly teaches that we are cleansed by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have sufficient basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in the death of Jesus Christ—it is by the “one time offering” of Jesus Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14). What of baptism then? It is the symbol, the outward representation before men of what the Spirit of God has done in our hearts (Titus 3:5-7). Unless we have first had our sins remitted in the blood of Christ, the symbol of baptism is meaningless. But doesn’t this passage say that baptism is for the remission of sins? Yes, but what does “for” mean? We feel that Dr. A. T. Robertson’s comments from earlier this century are very meaningful:
This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of “eis” does exist as in 1 Cor. 2:7....But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of “eis” for aim or purpose. It is seen in Matt. 10:41 in three examples “eis onoma prophetou, diakaiou, mathetou” where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Matt. 12:41 about the preaching of Jonah....They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koine generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received (A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, III:35-36).
The point being that one can (and we believe should, if one believes in the consistency of Scripture as a whole) understand Peter to be speaking of baptism on the grounds of the remission of sins that comes through belief in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:43). But, someone will surely object, Peter himself said that “baptism saves us” in 1 Peter 3:21. Let’s look at the passage in context:
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who were disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God’s right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
This is one of the more difficult passages in Scripture, due to the reference to Christ’s preaching to the “spirits in prison.” It is not our purpose to enter into the controversy over this particular aspect of this passage at this time (one might find Dr. Kenneth Wuest’s comments enlightening; see Wuest, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament II:92-109). Instead, we point out that foremost in Peter’s mind, again, is the death of Christ as the sacrifice for sin. Men are brought to God, not by what they do, but what God has done in Christ Jesus (v. 18). Upon the heels of this he mentions God’s act of judgment in the days of Noah. At that time eight souls were saved through water. Peter then says that this water “symbolizes” baptism (as the NIV translates the Greek term antitupon, literally, “antitype”). Baptism now saves us, Peter says—just as the water “saved” Noah and his family. But, of course, we know that Peter was not asserting that there was some salvific aspect to the flood waters themselves—God shut up the ark, and God saved Noah and his family. But the water is a symbol, Peter says, a symbol seen now in baptism. But is Peter dropping the symbolization so as to make baptism the means of salvation? Certainly not. Dr. Wuest has commented so well that we give his words at length:
Water baptism is clearly in the apostle’s mind, not the baptism by the Holy Spirit, for he speaks of the waters of the flood as saving the inmates of the ark, and in this verse, of baptism saving believers. But he says that it saves them only as a counterpart. That is, water baptism is the counterpart of the reality, salvation. It can only save as a counterpart, not actually. The Old Testament sacrifices were counterparts of the reality, the Lord Jesus. They did not actually save the believer, only in type. It is not argued here that these sacrifices are analogous to Christian water baptism. The author is merely using them as an illustration of the use of the word “counterpart.” So water baptism only saves the believer in type. The Old Testament Jew was saved before he brought the offering. That offering was only his outward testimony that he was placing faith in the Lamb of God of whom these sacrifices were a type....Water baptism is the outward testimony of the believer’s inward faith. The person is saved the moment he places his faith in the Lord Jesus. Water baptism is the visible testimony to his faith and the salvation he was given in answer to that faith. Peter is careful to inform his readers that he is not teaching baptismal regeneration, namely, that a person who submits to baptism is thereby regenerated, for he says, “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh.” Baptism, Peter explains, does not wash away the filth of the flesh, either in a literal sense as a bath for the body, nor in a metaphorical sense as a cleansing for the soul. No ceremonies really affect the conscience. But he defines what he means by salvation, in the words “the answer of a good conscience toward God,” and he explains how this is accomplished, namely, “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,” in that he believing sinner is identified with Him in that resurrection.
What, then, of Acts 22:16? Here, Ananias, having confronted the blinded Saul, says, in context:
Then he said: “The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”
We again see the common theme of the calling and sovereignty of God in the context of this passage as well (”God...has chosen you”). Verse 16 presents us with a significant construction in the original language. The terms “arise” and “call” (anastas and epikalesamenos) are aorist participles; “be baptized” and “be cleansed” (baptisai and apolousai) are aorist imperatives. These terms form two sets—the first, “arise and be baptized,” the second, “wash away your sins, calling upon the name of the Lord,” or more literally, “wash away your sins, having called upon the name of the Lord.” The remission of sins is effected by calling upon the name of the Lord in this passage—it is represented, as elsewhere, by baptism. One thing is for certain: given what we have seen previously of Paul’s own theology of justification, he certainly did not interpret Ananias to be teaching any form of baptismal regeneration!
In conclusion, we must again insist that the Scriptures must be taken as a whole—when we find in the direct, clear statements of Scripture truths that are contradictory to assumptions based upon passing comments, we must take the clear statements over the assumptions. In the issue of salvation, we must take the clear statements of Scripture regarding the work of the Spirit of God in regenerating lost sinners seriously. By teaching baptismal regeneration, people do despite not only to the sovereignty of God and the finished work of Christ, but to the real purpose and meaning of baptism as well. While some like to refer to the evangelical doctrine of baptism as a “mere symbol,” we respond by pointing out that an ordinance, given by Christ to His Church, in which the great and marvelous work of God in salvation is pictured for all to see is not properly described by the term “mere.” Instead, Christian baptism must be understood as representing a true and inner reality—one that is brought about by the grace of God in a person’s life. When we properly present baptism as it is presented in Scripture, we glorify God’s grace and magnify His work of salvation in Jesus Christ.” - James White, http://vintage.aomin.org/bapreg.html
BTW - Augustine taught that the obscure passages of scripture should be interpreted by the clear ones...”After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/augustine/doctrine.x_1.html
The next time you bury someone, feel free to toss a spoonful of dirt and walk away...
God can save someone without baptism...the thief on the cross, anyone? HOWEVER, if you wish to do it IAW how scripture teaches it (and “pour” isn’t a word I use much for a spoonful of water), then immersion is best, or a thorough wetting if that much water isn’t available.
I have no reason whatsoever to believe James White about anything - especially when all of orthodox history stands against him.
And about St. Augustine - since you think he works for your side of things - and his view of baptism:
“But the sacrament of baptism is undoubtedly the sacrament of regenation: Wherefore, as the man who has never lived cannot die, and he who has never died cannot rise again, so he who has never been born cannot be born again. From which the conclusion arises, that no one who has not been born could possibly have been born again in his father. Born again, however, a man must be, after he has been born; because, ‘Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God’ Even an infant, therefore, must be imbued with the sacrament of regeneration, lest without it his would be an unhappy exit out of this life; and this baptism is not administered except for the remission of sins. And so much does Christ show us in this very passage; for when asked, How could such things be? He reminded His questioner of what Moses did when he lifted up the serpent. Inasmuch, then, as infants are by the sacrament of baptism conformed to the death of Christ, it must be admitted that they are also freed from the serpent’s poisonous bite, unless we willfully wander from the rule of the Christian faith. This bite, however, they did not receive in their own actual life, but in him on whom the wound was primarily inflicted.”
(On Forgiveness of Sin, and Baptism, 43:27)
“One generation and another generation; the generation by which we are made the faithful, and are born again by baptism; the generation by which we shall rise again from the dead, and shall live with the Angels for ever.”
(Augustine on Psalm, 135:11)
You wrote:
“No, someone who wants to be a Christian needs to be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”
And that happens in baptism - with water. It’s a sacrament, not a ceremony.
“Jesus is said to be the one who baptizes with the Spirit, in contrast to water baptism.”
One in the same thing.
“And in Romans 8 we read, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.””
And Romans 6 tells us the importance of baptism. Sacramental baptism.
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.