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
BINGO !!!! Stop asking common sense questions..
Where do we find the "defects" in the soul from sin taught?
414 Q. What is Purgatory?
A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.
Dear annalex in wonderland, you alone are enough amusement for us all. Keep following the white rabbit, you’ll get to the tea party soon enough.
Why do you persist in citing the Baltimore Catechism as being the definitive expression of Catholic doctrine when it has been explained to you many, many times that the purpose of this Catechism was only to establish initial familiarization with the concepts and language of Catholicism to a juvenile audience? That was a rhetorical question because I know the answer; it is to deceive and to diminish the Church. The actual Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:
III. THE FINAL PURIFICATION, OR PURGATORY
1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.
1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned. The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.
1032 This teaching is also based on the practice of prayer for the dead, already mentioned in Sacred Scripture: "Therefore Judas Maccabeus] made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin." From the beginning the Church has honored the memory of the dead and offered prayers in suffrage for them, above all the Eucharistic sacrifice, so that, thus purified, they may attain the beatific vision of God. The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences, and works of penance undertaken on behalf of the dead:
Let us help and commemorate them. If Job's sons were purified by their father's sacrifice, why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.
So then Catholic church gave the imprimatur to incorrect doctrine to catechize children .. how infallible of it
Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.
The faith of the Church concerning purgatory is clearly expressed in the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence (Mansi, t. XXXI, col. 1031), and in the decree of the Council of Trent which (Sess. XXV) defined:
“Whereas the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has from the Sacred Scriptures and the ancient tradition of the Fathers taught in Councils and very recently in this Ecumenical synod (Sess. VI, cap. XXX; Sess. XXII cap.ii, iii) that there is a purgatory, and that the souls therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful, but principally by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar; the Holy Synod enjoins on the Bishops that they diligently endeavor to have the sound doctrine of the Fathers in Councils regarding purgatory everywhere taught and preached, held and believed by the faithful” (Denzinger, “Enchiridon”, 983).
Further than this the definitions of the Church do not go, but the tradition of the Fathers and the Schoolmen must be consulted to explain the teachings of the councils, and to make clear the belief and the practices of the faithful.
Temporal punishment
That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture. God indeed brought man out of his first disobedience and gave him power to govern all things (Wisdom 10:2), but still condemned him “to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow” until he returned unto dust. God forgave the incredulity of Moses and Aaron, but in punishment kept them from the “land of promise” (Numbers 20:12). The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God’s enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14). In the New Testament as well as in the Old, almsgiving and fasting, and in general penitential acts are the real fruits of repentance (Matthew 3:8; Luke 17:3; 3:3). The whole penitential system of the Church testifies that the voluntary assumption of penitential works has always been part of true repentance and the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, can. xi) reminds the faithful that God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt. God requires satisfaction, and will punish sin, and this doctrine involves as its necessary consequence a belief that the sinner failing to do penance in this life may be punished in another world, and so not be cast off eternally from God.
Catholic encyclopedia sounds a lot like the baltimore catechism huh?
Words such as "false" "wrong" "misleading" do not attribute motive.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Even though it bent your pick, the Baltimore Catechism was a simplistic introduction to the proper Catechism of the Church meant to introduce concepts and vocabulary as the foundation for later studies. You would have to be pretty stupid to think that ten and twelve year olds are ready for Aquinas' Summa Theologica or that the goofy comic book Sunday School primers used by Protestants are any less fallible.
Tip-toe around it all you like and cite any second or third hand interpretation you like. I posted what the actual Catechism of the Catholic Church says about Purgatory. I realize that you failed miserably in your first encounter with the Catechism and that self-catechesis is not very effective, but spouting what you do about it only makes you look goofy and disingenuous.
Present away. If I dismiss your "evidence" that is because it is dismissible, and I point out why. If you think there is a post of mine where I dismissed evidence without a reason, please point to that post.
I am not adding because I agree that the scripture does not say that Virgin Mary remained a virgin, etc. The question is, as the Catholic Chruch teaches that Virgin Mary remained virgin, had no sin, and was assumed into heaven, is the Church contradicting scripture? Well, it is not contradicting Matthew 1?24-25, as I showed. Likewise I showed that no other passage from the Bible contradicts the Chruch. It is always helpful to understand the nature of the argument before arguing. You do nto seem to understand, judging from that post, the nature of the argument.
[Matthew 1:24-25] it clearly says that he knew her AFTER she had given birth.
No, it doesn't say that. It says that he did not know her before. It says nothing about after. Again, it is helpful to understand the argument before arguing to the contrary.
that Mary had other children [...] is found elsewhere in the Gospels,
No it is not found because "brothers" can mean any kind of relation as the Bible shows. James and Joses, for example, are said in the scripture to be of anyther mother, yet in some verses they are called "berothers" of Jesus. That is because "brother" in Koine Greek does not necessarily mean brother of the same womb.
mockery does not help you case
When I see someone lacking an understanding of the post she is responding to I find it comical and worthy of a little friendly mockery. Show some evidence of logic in your answers and you won't be mocked.
Just out of curiosity, why do you and other Catholics have enough respect for tradition to capitalize the word but do not capitalize the word *scripture*? I've notice it often with the word *bible* as well.
Because there is a meaningful difference between the Holy Tradition that was given down to the Apostles, and that is frozen since that time, and any other tradition which may descend from some later time. For example, the use of Latin in the Liturgy is tradition -- it dates from probably 3 c, -- but it is not the Holy Tradition. The Scripture does not have that distinction, whether I say "scripture" or "the Holy Scripture" it is clear that I am referring to the same thing.
To that you wrote: We can start with recognition of the papacy. THAT'S a theological issue.
The "Other Catholic Churches" recognize the Papacy and are in full communion with Rome, whicle having different liturgy. The Eastern Orthodox do not but I was not speaking of them. It is usually a good idea to understand the post you are responding to, before making a response.
The lunatic fringe clearly does not speak for Protestantism. On the subject of Mary's perpetual virginity said:
"Christ, our Savior, was the real and natural fruit of Mary's virginal womb . . . This was without the cooperation of a man, and she remained a virgin after that."
{Luther's Works, eds. Jaroslav Pelikan (vols. 1-30) & Helmut T. Lehmann (vols. 31-55), St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House (vols. 1-30); Philadelphia: Fortress Press (vols. 31-55), 1955, v.22:23 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
"Christ . . . was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him . . . I am inclined to agree with those who declare that 'brothers' really mean 'cousins' here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers."
{Pelikan, ibid., v.22:214-15 / Sermons on John, chaps. 1-4 (1539) }
A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ . . .
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:199 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Scripture does not say or indicate that she later lost her virginity . . .
When Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her . . . This babble . . . is without justification . . . he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.
{Pelikan, ibid.,v.45:206,212-3 / That Jesus Christ was Born a Jew (1523) }
Even Calvin, as crazy and heretical as he was, did not go there:
Helvidius displayed excessive ignorance in concluding that Mary must have had many sons, because Christ's 'brothers' are sometimes mentioned.
{Harmony of Matthew, Mark & Luke, sec. 39 (Geneva, 1562), vol. 2 / From Calvin's Commentaries, tr. William Pringle, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1949, p.215; on Matthew 13:55} [On Matt 1:25:]
The inference he [Helvidius] drew from it was, that Mary remained a virgin no longer than till her first birth, and that afterwards she had other children by her husband . . . No just and well-grounded inference can be drawn from these words . . . as to what took place after the birth of Christ. He is called 'first-born'; but it is for the sole purpose of informing us that he was born of a virgin . . . What took place afterwards the historian does not inform us . . . No man will obstinately keep up the argument, except from an extreme fondness for disputation.
{Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 107}
Under the word 'brethren' the Hebrews include all cousins and other relations, whatever may be the degree of affinity. {Pringle, ibid., vol. I, p. 283 / Commentary on John, (7:3) }
profess to hold the faith of Abraham
Is that so? And what may I ask would be your response if I asked you to explain John 3:16? Somehow, I imagine you may answer "by explaining how the Scripture doesn't say what it says".
Kolo mou, there is a hymn where the people sing "Through the intercession of the Theotokos, [O] Savior, save us." This is distinctly different from "Most holy Theotokos, save us."
I have never seen anyone do a metania at the mention of her name, though I certainly have seen it before her icons, and the icons of other saints for that matter
I have in a Serbian church and I confronted that person, and tried to explain to her why this was wrong, and brought it to the priest's attention, to avail. Not only did the practice continue but it spread among the faithful.
Look, this is no different than "Trinity" icons depicting God the Father as a very old man, or "Old Man Time" icons depicting Father/Christ as a very old man, that are allowed to subsist in Orthodox churches.
Luther was inspired! ROTFLOL!
And many Catholics are masters at manipulating definitions. That's how the RCC fakes people out.
They do and they don't. All at the same time.
Gotcha.....
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.