Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm...
...Ex cathedra criterion has been applied since the beginning of the Church. The popes have always had the last word when speaking ex cathedra and that word was law...
Von Dollinger refuted this latter Neo-Roman contention and many others like it in 1870:
Chapter III - Papal Infallibility
For particular refutations see:
Section 5, p. 63 et seq. - The Ancient Constitution of the Church
and
Section 6, p.70 et seq - The Teachings of the Fathers
Honorius passively approved heresy that originated from somebody else,
The words of the Council already quoted twice give lie to the claim that Honorius "passively" approved heresy:
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris
Do you actually read any of the documentary evidence that is posted?
Cordially,
Let me clarify what I mean by saying of the term “Protestant”:
“Today it has become merely a term of institutionalized snobbery.”
The snobbery remains that of Roman Catholics who knowingly use this term, which has become so institutionalized and convenient that many on both sides don’t really recognize it for what it is.
Having lived at the time in the USA the bishop had a right to his opinion, however wrong it was.
There does not need to be a list because most,if not all is contained in the Catechism so that everyone can understand it easily.
And you have a right to your opinion on however wrong it is :)
Diamond asked:
“Do you actually read any of the documentary evidence that is posted?”
The use of talking points makes reading unnecessary, even as it makes listening unnecessary on the cable news channels that put forth talking heads that simply shout talking points at each other.
Yup. As Yakov Smirnov used to say, “What a country!”
I haven't said, implied or intimated any such thing. I was merely expressing stunned surprise at your calling the pronouncements of an Ecumenical Council a "secondary source".
Cordially,
Not every statement from a pope is ex cathedra. In fact, most popes NEVER make such a definition. Do you understand this? Honorius' letter was not intended by him to be a new teaching since he recommended the issue be kept silent. Therefore it most certainly was not an ex cathedra definition.
You say Honorius must have made such an ex cathedra definition because the Third General Council of Constantinople said so? Not really. The council was in the midst of fighting Monothelitic heretics that had found Honorius' letter and used it as a pretext to revolt. Heresies at that time were used as the cover for political revolts (and still are). The harsh condemnation was certainly a polemic to combat the heretics and probably exaggerated Honorius' offense.
Even so, the council never accuses Honorius of defining the heresy. Honorius and his friend had exchanged letters musing over some very confusing topics about which both writers were obviously confused. Honorius never reached any firm conclusions or intended that any new doctrine be taught. Here is a discussion of the issues in the letter:
I did not find this council statement at any of your links. Where did you get it?
Protestantism is a crude system of cheap slogans. It takes time and patience to break through the fog. Most people don’t have the time.
Read the scripture for what it says, pay attention how it says it and before you know it, you will be Catholic.
No, not at all. There are historical facts known to us and that are not described in the scripture. Perpetual virginity of Mary is one of them. The Church retained a collective memory of the fact.
“There does not need to be a list because most,if not all is contained in the Catechism so that everyone can understand it easily.”
Yes. I have the new Catholic Catechism, all 803 pages of it. In fact, I have two of them. “Understand it easily” is not, however, a thought that leaps immediately to mind as one tries to use it. Don’t get me wrong, long and complicated things are some times necessary, and often even enjoyable to work through. But a catechism of 803 pages? Luke, who wrote the first catechism (see Luke 1:4 where the word is first used in the Christian church, albeit in verbal form rather than as a noun), accomplished infinitely more in many fewer, less (shall we say) tendentious pages.
Even the Large Catechism of Martin Luther runs to only about one tenth the size of the Catholic Catechism. Truth is usually pretty easy to state simply and briefly. His Small Catechism is less than one hundredth the size of the Catholic Catechism.
There is only one problem with that, annalex. There is nothing in Roman Catholicsm that is in scripture.. It has to be IMPLICITLY understood in order to make it fit RCC’s doctrines. That is not scripture. That is reading between the lines.
annalex wrote:
“Protestantism is a crude system of cheap slogans. It takes time and patience to break through the fog. Most people don’t have the time.”
Uh huh, I see. What then is Roman Catholicism? A cleverly constructed system of mixed truth and error that took time and patience to make into the fog it truly is. Most people don’t have the time to do such a thing, but hundreds of popes, cardinals, bishops and assorted other princes of the “church” conspiring together over the years had plenty of time.
Well,dear brother- That is what good catechism teachers are for.It's really not that difficult to understand how to live out the faith and everyone does not have to be a theologian either
We read the scriptures, and believe them as they are written, without humanist changes, thus we follow Christ.
Never will we be catholics, because we love the Lord, not the traditions of men.
I've posted a Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints by Augustine several times now. Didn't you read it? According to Augustine, that is Pelagius' error.
From Augustine....
Chap 37 - Therefore God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so. Moreover, He did this according to the good pleasure of His will, so that nobody might glory concerning his own will, but about God's will towards himself. He did this according to the riches of His grace, according to His good-will, which He purposed in His beloved Son, in whom we have obtained a share, being predestinated according to the purpose, not ours, but His, who worketh all things to such an extent as that He worketh in us to will also. Moreover, He worketh according to the counsel of His will, that we may be to the praise of His glory. [Phil. 2.13.] For this reason it is that we cry that no one should glory in man, and, thus, not in himself; but whoever glorieth let him glory in the Lord, that he may be for the praise of His glory. ...
Chap 38 - But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that "having received God's commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case," they say, "He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world." Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. "But we say," say they, "that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work." But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, "We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things." [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: "For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;" [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: "Not of works, but of Him that calleth" [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, "of Him that believeth"); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you." Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.
> “There are historical facts known to us and that are not described in the scripture”
.
Yes, that is what the Lord condemned constantly when he was on Earth: the traditions of men. The historical facts of pagan idolatry; the ancient worship of “the goddess and god.”
.
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.