In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

[Belteshazzar]

stfassisi wrote:
“and everyone does not have to be a theologian either.”

True enough. On the other hand every child of God by faith in Jesus Christ tends to be a pretty good theologian on however simple, but often, profound a level. At least that is my observation. And it must be so, because the One and Only Good Shepherd said, “My sheep hear My voice, and they follow Me.”

Simple. Profound. True. Pure good news from heaven itself!

[HarleyD]

I'm surprise you didn't use the more appropriate #4 definition:

...a living creature sacrificed in religious rites.

The difference with Christ sacrifice and a "victim" is that Christ gave his life willingly. A "victim" may be sacrificed but not willfully. Our Lord was very clear that no one was taking His life but that He was laying it down for us.

Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

It is absurb that Christ was a "victim". In fact, I did a search on the scriptures for the word "victim" and can't find one reference.

It is really unimaginable that Catholics would not question why the Church would change the context and meaning of clear scripture. Their love for the Church must outweight their love of God's text.

[mas cerveza por favor]

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:

Do you actually read any of the documentary evidence that is posted?

LOL. Do you actually read any of your documentary evidence before you post it? Your mangled and ellipsed quote of the counsel statement creates that false impression that Honorius actively promoted heresy. Here is your quote:

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

Here is the quote without ellipses and with the missing left parentheses restored:

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, Paul and Peter, who were Archbishops of this royal city, and moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome, Cyrus Bishop of Alexandria, Macarius who was lately bishop of Antioch, and Stephen his disciple), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks

Now it should be obvious it was the author of evil (Devil), not Honorius, who the council says had actively employed nine named individuals, including the passive Honorius. Of course the old pope from fifty years ago who was no longer around to defend himself.

[RnMomof7]

Read the scripture for what it says, pay attention how it says it and before you know it, you will be Catholic.

Reading the scriptures was the motivation for leaving Rome.. The more i read the more I realized the less Rome was anything like the church of the NT ...

[stfassisi]

On the other hand every child of God by faith in Jesus Christ tends to be a pretty good theologian on however simple, but often, profound a level.

Theology is only useful if the end result is love.I'm sure we both agree on this?

[annalex]

I see no such inference of an Apostolic Succession from this, though

"I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things".

he was NOT speaking of one, primal overseer to the entire, universal church

St. Ignatius does not speak of the Papacy in that letter, but he does speak of episcopacy. He did leave some remarks about the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as well, but not in that letter. If you are interested, I can dig them up for you.

I don't think Ignatius was speaking of the "Eucharist" in any way that you imply he did. [... ] He wanted them to understand that the very purpose of the "Lord's Supper" was the remembrance that Jesus very much was in the flesh, that he gave this flesh and blood for the sacrifice for our sins just as the sacrifices of old were of real flesh and blood creatures for a covering for sins. He reiterated Jesus' own words that the bread was "his body" and the wine

In chapter 5, perhaps. But then we read, in Chapter 7 "They [the heretics we Catholics should stay away from] abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ". It does not get more C-C-Catholic than that.

[annalex]

Peter is plainly referring to the very epistle he was writing, not some office

"I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease" refers to something that the future generation "has" because St. Peter "will endeavour" so, that is of the apostolic origin. That would be a very strange way to describe the letter itself.

this is one of the very, very small handful of verses that the Roman church uses to try to establish some scriptural support for an ongoing papal office

Why de we need a thousand verses? Matthew 16, 18, and this I think is quite enough, and there are others that signify the St. Peter has a distinct role to play in the Church.

belittle the Holy Scriptures

Belittle how? All I do is argue from scripture with you. Here's the Protestant lie: design a theory of "faith alone" that is expressly negated in the scripture, then beat themselves on the chest that they go by scripture alone. In the age of the Internet, when everyone can check your bluff, it is not working.

The Catholic would turn this order around and have tradition sit in judgment of the written word

The written word is a product of the Holy Tradition. It cannot sit in judgment of it, it is one whole with it.

[annalex]

The message [of 1 Cor 3:9-15] is that God will judge a mans WORKS .. in context their ministries.. those that are God ordained and true will be rewarded ..those that are not will be destroyed

Not necessarily works of a minister, but every man's work. Yes, God will judge the work and remove from the soul, like fire removes from the body, the inferior material. That is what the Purgatory does.

This scripture does not address men "paying" for their own sin

Correct, because the Purgatory is not something where men pay for their sin. Christ paid for their sins already by the time they are in there.

It is a good idea to know the subject matter of which you opine.

[annalex]

... and so I ping you all to my previous post.

[metmom]

Reading the scriptures was the motivation for leaving Rome.. The more i read the more I realized the less Rome was anything like the church of the NT ...

Same here. I couldn't reconcile (wrap my mind around really) the differences between the plain, un-reinterpreted reading of Scripture with what the Catholic church actually, in practice, taught. Not their alleged *official* doctrine either. What was taught at the local parish level.

However, once my eyes were opened, I saw the disparity between Scripture and *official* doctrine as well.

[metmom]

Correct, because the Purgatory is not something where men pay for their sin. Christ paid for their sins already by the time they are in there.

Thus, there's no point for purgatory.

[annalex]

Could you provide the scriptural references for Jesus teaching the principle or gift of Apostolic succession ?

The apostolic succession is clear from references to imposition of hands in both Timothys and Titus, and the instruction to them to ordain priests.

where God ordained a new testament priesthood?

At the Last Supper when He gave the Apostles the bread which became His body, and then told them to do likewise.

infallible papacy or even an infallible teaching by the church ?

In Luke 22 Christ promises St. Peter that He will pray for Peter so that while others are sifted as wheat, he, St. Peter will not fail and convert his brethren. The infallibility of the Chruch is clear from its mandate to "bind and loose" given twice in Matthew 16 and 18. Also see the verse where Christ is said to cleanse His bride the Church of every blemish (Eph 5).

References to the necessity of baptism for salvation are in John 3 and Mark 16, necessity of the Eucharist for salvation in John 6. Spouses santifying each other is in 1 Corinthians 7.

There is an episode in Acts 8 where the converts are already baptized, but the Apostles lay their hands on them so that they receive the holy Ghost. That is the confirmation.

Annointing of the sick is in James 5.

The Holy Orders is the imposition of hands in both Timothys and Titus.

Confession is in John 20.

Sorry, I did not look up verses or I will be forever educating you in the scripture that you supposedly have such great respect for.

[annalex]

It is about the fourth time you ask this question. If you still need the answer, ask. Hint: Mark 15, — different Mary.

[annalex]

Why do we need translations at all?

"εν τουτω τω σκηνωματι", "in this tabernacle". "Skinoma" is literally "tent", a form of dwelling in liturgical use since Moses. They put manna in there, by the way, in prefigurment of the Catholic tabernacles. There is not shortage of Baptist houses of worship called "tabernacle". Did they, too, name their church after their bodies?

[annalex]

If you compare that with the reference to another Mary at the foot of the cross in Mark 15, with a similar name list of children, you will recognize that “brothers” there are simply “members of the same household that are close in age”.

[smvoice]

The Holy Orders is the imposition of hands in both Timothys and Titus.

Reading Titus now. reading...reading...preaching...no priest mentioned...reading..elders....husband of one woman...reading..reprobate..reading..sober..exhort..rebuke..reading..justified by grace...reading...Amen...

Nope not a thing on hands.

Scripture please?

[annalex]

Unless you were baptised Catholic, you are out of it

For the purposes of the Inquisition it was sufficient to renounce the Catholic faih in order to be released to civil authority. You are correct, of course, that the baptism is an indelible mark that cannot be removed.

[editor-surveyor]

Giv it up!

You’re sowing confusion where the truth is simple:

Tabernacle is a dwelling place for something.

Peter was dwelling temporarily in his Earthly body, so he called it his tabernacle. That is obvious from the context.

Catholics must twist everything from the simple to the convoluted to cover their anti-scriptural pagan doctrines.

Christians don’t really need to worry too much about translation issues, because we have the Holy Spirit guiding our understanding, which is why Protestant doctrine is so very consistant, while catholics, lacking the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must pretend that they are following their catechism and blame their apostasy on the scriptures that they never read, yielding millions of different doctrines from diocease to diocease, and parish to parish as they all muddle in their confusion.

[mas cerveza por favor]

It is absurb that Christ was a "victim". In fact, I did a search on the scriptures for the word "victim" and can't find one reference. It is really unimaginable that Catholics would not question why the Church would change the context and meaning of clear scripture. Their love for the Church must outweight their love of God's text.

The word victim is used frequently in Septuagint translations of the OT, like the Douay-Rheims, but never in Masoretic text translations, like the KJV. Christ and his Apostles likely used the Septuagint OT, since it was the most complete and authoritative set of scriptures at the time. All the NT quotes of OT scripture come from the Septuagint. In 90 AD, a council of Jewish rabbis denounced the Septuagint and made plans to publish a Hebrew-only set of scriptures. This task was not completed until many centuries later.

The Septuagint contains key prophesies of Christ that are missing or altered in the Masoretic text. In Isaiah 7:14, the mother of the Messiah is a "virgin" in the former, while only a "young woman" in the latter. Is is noteworthy that the large Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora had used the Septuagint exclusively for centuries before Christ. Only after His coming did Jewish authorities decide the Septuagint was no longer acceptable. In the KJV, the sections containing OT prophesies of Christ, such as Isaiah 7:14, substitute in Septuagint passages. However, the rest of the KJV OT uses the Masoretic text. Even the word "holocaust" comes from the Septuagint.

It is odd that the rabbi-compiled, post-Christian Masoretic text completely avoids the word "victim" while the pre-Christian Septuagint contains the word in great abundance. Here are two examples comparing the Masoretic-KJV and the Septuagint-Douay-Rheims:

Leviticus 10:19
DR: Aaron answered: This day hath been offered the victim for sin, and the holocaust before the Lord: and to me what thou seest has happened: how could I eat it, or please the Lord in the ceremonies, having a sorrowful heart?

KJV: And Aaron said unto Moses, Behold, this day have they offered their sin offering and their burnt offering before the LORD; and such things have befallen me: and [if] I had eaten the sin offering to day, should it have been accepted in the sight of the LORD?

Leviticus 14:13
DR: He shall immolate the lamb, where the victim for sin is wont to be immolated, and the holocaust, that is, in the holy place: for as that which is for sin, so also the victim for a trespass offering pertaineth to the priest: it is holy of holies.

KJV: And he shall slay the lamb in the place where he shall kill the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the holy place: for as the sin offering [is] the priest's, [so is] the trespass offering: it [is] most holy:

[Diamond]

Now it should be obvious it was the author of evil (Devil), not Honorius, who the council says had actively employed nine named individuals, including the passive Honorius.

You are absolutely right on this point. I misread the sentence. I stand corrected.

I will say that I don't think it helps the case much for his infallibility, though, to say that he was a Satanically inspired, passive dupe - "a fit tool for his will", as they put it.

As far as passivity as a Satanic tool goes, he was not completely passive. The Council proclaimed: "But but along with them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrine."

Cordially,