In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)

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

[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

[Kolokotronis]

"BB-”So, when Jesus said: Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light. (Matt. 11:29-30) He was exaggerating? Lying? Minimizing? What?”"

Of course not. Here is what +John Chrysostom says about the verse:

"Next, having brought them by His words to an earnest desire, and having signified His unspeakable power, He after that invites them, saying, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” Not this or that person, but all that are in anxiety, in sorrows, in sins. Come, not that I may call you to account, but that I may do away your sins; come, not that I want your honor, but that I want your salvation. “For I,” saith He, “will give you rest.” He said not, “I will save you,” only; but what was much more, “I will place you in all security.”

“Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” Thus, “be not afraid,” saith He, “hearing of a yoke, for it is easy: fear not, because I said, “a burden,” for it is light.”

And how said He before, “The gate is narrow and the way strait?” Whilst thou art careless, whilst thou art supine; whereas, if thou duly perform His words, the burden will be light; wherefore also He hath now called it so.

But how are they duly performed? If thou art become lowly, and meek, and gentle. For this virtue is the mother of all strictness of life. Wherefore also, when beginning those divine laws, with this He began. And here again He doeth the very same, and exceeding great is the reward He appoints. “For not to another only dost thou become serviceable; but thyself also above all thou refreshest,” saith He. “For ye shall find rest unto your souls.”

Even before the things to come, He gives thee here thy recompense, and bestows the prize already, making the saying acceptable, both hereby, and by setting Himself forward as an example. For, “Of what art thou afraid?” saith He, “lest thou shouldest be a loser by thy low estate? Look to me, and to all that is mine; learn of me, and then shalt thou know distinctly how great thy blessing.” Seest thou how in all ways He is leading them to humility? By His own doings: “Learn of me, for I am meek.” By what themselves are to gain; for, “Ye shall find,” saith He,” rest unto your souls.” By what He bestows on them; for, “I too will refresh you,” saith He. By rendering it light; “For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” So likewise doth Paul, saying, “For the present light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory.” Homily XXXVIII on Matthew

Humility, meekness, "dying to the self" and becoming like God, bb.

[stfassisi]

“”Once we’re forgiven, the sin debt is gone.””

Our sins effect fellow man and our sins can cause fellow man to sin against others because of what we did.

Those who don’t believe in penance are self centered and are truly not sorry or they could care enough to do penance for the sins against fellow man by acting Christ like and imitating Him

Basically,denying penance is being a lazy sinner

MM-””Penance is not Scriptural.””
“And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him.

[6] For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. [7] Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct? [8] But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons. [9] Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live? [10] And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.

[11] Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice. [12] Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees, [13] And make straight steps with your feet: that no one, halting, may go out of the way; but rather be healed” Heb 12:5-13

[Natural Law]

"A dead language. How appropriate."

So was Hebrew until 1949.

[Natural Law]

"907 was the exorcism prayer."

No it wasn't. I was the author of #907 and I merely stated that an exorcism would do number of Freepers some good. The mod thought that was flame baiting and removed it. I stand behind my original statement.

[annalex]

He’s not present, he is present and then he’s not present as the apparent bread, which is body, blood, soul, divinity is eaten and changes appearance

Correct. The appearance is here to indicate the real Eucharistic presence specifically of Christ, apart from the ordinary omnipresence of God.

The only place where Christ’s blood was offered was in heaven. (Hebrews 9:12)

"By his own blood, entered once into the holies, having obtained eternal redemption." Indeed. Ther Eucharist is not a separate sacrifice but that very sacrifice described in Hebrews 9, applied to us personally.

[annalex]

The new ideals of humanism, although more secular in some aspects, developed against a Christian backdrop, especially in the Northern Renaissance

Everyone can read his personal theology into art, of course. My comment was regarding early Renaisance; I am not a big fan of late and Northern Renaissance; the authentic Renaiissance ended, I believe, with Memling, and what remained was in transition to mannerism. Regarding Protestant influences later on, perhaps.

What makes early Renaissance Catholic is not just the deviotional nature but also the celebration of humanity in its joyful redeemed state. That incarnationalism is wholly foreign to Calvin, but can be mistaken for humanism, especially by secular or Protestant art critics.

This is the joyful face of the Church:

Madonna and Child

Alessio Baldovinetti

1460-65
Wood, 106 x 75 cm
Musée du Louvre, Paris

By the way, anyone wondering why the Catohlic Church is "she" needs to look at this or similar painting.

[annalex]

Okay, you say a man is "justified by works"? Well, tell me how you then "explain" this:

Romans 3:23-26

What is to explain? The passage says everything the Catholic Church teaches: that sin is redeemed by the blood of Christ, in which we have faith (hm...); that grace alone justifies us given us freely without merit on our part. You did not include the remainder of the passage but had you read a couple verses down you would have seen that the thrust here is with the impossiblity of salvation by "works of the law", as the Jews believed. The passage does not say that we are saved by faith alone, and we do not teach that we are saved by works alone. We believe what St. Paul teaches. You don't: you add your own spin to his belief and in other places you ingore the Gospel altogether. You, for example, do not believe that His Blood is present in the Eucharist even though that belief is cited here as saving faith.

[annalex]

Mary says she is not at the time she is speaking ‘knowing’ a man and says nothing about her intents or future

Then her question is meaningless, because naturally women get to intimately know their husband in order to have children born to them.

[annalex]

Annalex: Christ in present fully in either consecrated species, so long as either species remains in appearance, respectively, apparent bread or apparent wine. Body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ is present either in the bread or in the wine. This is why a communion in bread alone or in wine alone is possible, and in fact for many centuries was the norm.

So it follows that so long as one of the two species remains what it appears to be, the entire Christ is present.

Old Reggie cites Matthew 26:26-28

I don't understand what is supposed to follow from Matthew 26:26-28 that is contrary to what I said. The species contain body and blood of Jesus and since He is resurrected in the body, blood and flesh are united in Him again. The Apostle ate the consecrated bread and consecrated wine and the two united in their mouths to form the Whole Risen Christ. The two species, by the way, are united also during the Consecration as a part of the consecrated host is dropped into the consecrated wine.

[annalex]

Romans 2 gives no comfort to those lost in "salvation by works;"

So Paul did not mean it when he wrote "will render to every man according to his deeds"?

Matthew 25, "The parable of the Talents," also is devoid of any indication of "salvation by works"

Really? So Jesus did not mean it when He said "possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat, etc"?

Works are the result of salvation.

Where is that nonsense in the scripture? Romans 2 and Matthews 25 teach the opposite: those who do good works are saved, those who don't are condemned. Not complicated.

[The Theophilus]

For God’s sake, don’t tell me you don’t understand Latin?

Quod nesciunt eos non interficiet.

[The Theophilus]

The RM has decreed that any posts in a foreign language which are not very common phrases must be translated.

Next time, just post:

"Heu, modo itera omnia quae mihi nunc nuper narravisti, sed nunc Anglice."

["Listen, would you repeat everything you just told me, only this time say it in English."]

[editor-surveyor]

>> “So Paul did not mean it when he wrote ‘will render to every man according to his deeds?’ “<<

Where do you gather salvation out of that? Its just not there.

Here is what Paul said WRT salvation:

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:

Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

.
So, you see, we cannot do good works unless we are already saved.

[annalex]

combining your adjacent posts in one reply.

But Jesus did tell them to do it in remembrance of Him.

Yes. I know. It is your second post I am reading today that does not tell me anything I don't know or the Church does not teach.

He certainly was known as "Peter" prior to your magic "rock" event. [cites several scriptures where name Peter was used prior to the "Thou art Peter" episode.

It doesn't follow that he was. The Evangleist, writing at the time when Peter was known cheifly as Peter, naturally refers to Peter by the name most likely to be known to the reader, Peter.

But that is n ot even an important point. Let us postulate that Jesus actually had renamed Peter earlier. But in Matthew 16 the reason for the renaming is given. So anyway, the connection is between Peter and the rock on which the Church is built.

It was Peters' faith, not Peter himself upon which Jesus built His Church.

Yes, you can say that. Generally, when people are given tasks it is because of some ability that they have pertaining to the task. In this case, the exceptional ability was St. Peter's faith. That made him pope.

Your reply has no relationship whatsoever to my post #5120

In 5120 you mentioned the possibility that some letters of St. Ignatius are not written by him, but the letter I am focused on, to the Smyrneans, is not among those thus suspected.

read the whole story of Joseph's reaction when he found she was pregnant

Yes, Joseph was upset that she was pregnant, but how is that helpful to undertand why a girl about to get married wonders how is she to have children PRIOR to becoming pregnant?

I am tired

That's OK. I am at times tired too. Thank you for your company.

Annalex: You were there? [at the times of Mary]

Old Reggie: Maybe.

No you were not, but somebody Catholic was present. St. Luke, for example.

[Hoodat]

Who has bewitched these foolish Galatians?

[Kolokotronis]

"Quod nesciunt eos non interficiet."

:)

[annalex]

Tell me where in John 3:16 does our Lord say "that whosoever believeth in him (and does good works) shall not perish but have everlasting life"?

It doesn't of course. John 3:16 simply says that you have to believe Christ in order to be saved by Christ. So you have, among other things, do what He says, and that includes the good works that He teaches. Surely John 3:16 does not say "Beleive in Christ, except what He teaches in Matthew 5-7".

I KNOW Catholics do not believe in everything Christ said, because I once was one and rarely did we even read for ourselves what God's word said

That the Catholics (surely many Catholics) rarely and poorely study the scripture and instead rely on their priest to explain it to them does not mean they do not believe everything Christ said. They simply get it through the mediation of the Church who, as we know, produced the written record of what Christ said to begin with. You, on the other hand, get it through the spin of Protestant charlatans. So who is ahead fulfilling the commandment of John 3:16??

[editor-surveyor]

>> “ but somebody Catholic was present. St. Luke, for example” <<

.
Impossible; the catholic apostasy wasn’t invented until over two centuries after Luke died.
.

[editor-surveyor]

Dear annalex, any works that one does with the motivation of acheiving salvation are as filthy rags, and cannot benefit your state.

Only the works of one that is saved can be good.

[boatbums]

What is to explain? The passage says everything the Catholic Church teaches: that sin is redeemed by the blood of Christ, in which we have faith (hm...); that grace alone justifies us given us freely without merit on our part. You did not include the remainder of the passage but had you read a couple verses down you would have seen that the thrust here is with the impossiblity of salvation by "works of the law", as the Jews believed. The passage does not say that we are saved by faith alone, and we do not teach that we are saved by works alone. We believe what St. Paul teaches. You don't: you add your own spin to his belief and in other places you ingore the Gospel altogether. You, for example, do not believe that His Blood is present in the Eucharist even though that belief is cited here as saving faith.

Let's look at that context:

Romans 3:20-31
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

So you see, I hope, that we are justified by faith. There is a Law of Works (which you seem to fancy), and there is a Law of Faith. We ARE saved by faith alone, and it is your "spin", or the spin you have heard all your life, rather, that insults and ignores the true Gospel.

The idea that this passage gives credence to His Blood is present in the Eucharist is nowhere to be found here much less that belief in that idea is required for "saving faith". When we trust in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins, we BY FAITH receive him and this act of genuine faith is what puts into place the redemption of our souls - we do not have to continuously receive him through a reinactment of the sacrifice of the Mass in order to be saved. But go right ahead and believe that, I know my words will never convince anyone, it is only the Holy Spirit with each individual heart who can do that.