Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
Well, we are, after all, the Church Militant.
That is true, although a similar belief has been held continually since the Early Church. Vatican I specified that the Pope can go against the consensus of the bishops; that was the only thing that some might call an innovation. On the other hand, St. Athanasius went "contra mundum" in 4c. and we all praise him for that.
The Vatican Alice In Wonderland School Of Theology, Reality Mangling, Chronic Professional Blaming, Wailing and Whining Cult's RUBBERIZED HISTORY strikes again!
Imagine, Proddys, they actually BELIEVE that stuff!
"If you're not sure you're saved, you can be sure you're not."
Some deep wisdom in that simple statement.
Last I checked, Pope Benedict XVI and nearly all other popes were in fact bishops of Rome.
Ratzinger is a false bishop of Rome because he is not elected by the congregation. Authoritarian, hierarchical verticalism is contraindicated by the Scriptural example of the early church and the churches of the Reformation.
Laughing was certainly a MAJOR goal of those posts. LOL.
Thanks for the kind reply.
Matter of fact, long time ago I was a lector and the priest told me to use a Canadian lectionary because that was based on the translation he liked better. I don’t remember which was which. The Tridentine Rite uses Jerome’s Latin translation. But your larger point is valid, that in practical terms NAB is today a part of Novus Ordo in America and everything else is exceptional. This situation is not perfect, as the NAB is a flawed translation, as you point out. The supposedly “Catholic” commentary to the NAB is actually worse that the translation itself.
Looking on the bright side, traditionalism of many kinds is rising in America and worldwide. I think all these concessions to Protestantism that Vatican II attempted to institute will be swept to the ash heap of history soon, along with the dynamic translations, clown masses, and the Protestantized church space. The English translation of the Mass rubrics itself, for example, has been brought in line with the Latin original, much to the protest of the liberal wing of the American episcopacy; it is going in effect next liturgical year (fall of 2011). Things are looking very good going forward.
Second, what translation is used at Mass is less important to the formation of a Catholic than what translation to use in a Protestant setting for the formation of Protestants, because a Catholic does not get his knowledge of Christ from the naked text of the scripture. The scripture read at Mass is properly contextualized by the Old Testament, Epistle and the Gospel readings, and the Psalm, heard as a group; the homily ordinarily (there are exceptions) is centered on the three readings. So the Catholic faithful gets the correct picture from the medium of the Church. I heard many homilies where the priest would explain where the translation falls short and point out what the original really says. That is his job, to deliver the Good News accurately.
there is also disagreement …
Of course there is. We are a living church.
If you mean that at that moment the person is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) spiritually baptized into body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13), and translated into the the kingdom of God and made to sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6) and would go to be with the Lord that day if he died, but who is to become more and more practically what he is positionally, to one toward completeness, yes.
The Gospel actually says that these souls were baptized and added to the Church” (Acts 2:41), but you said “saved”. So you understand that at baptism the work of justification begins rather than ends. That is important, again, because most Protestants hold to the once-saved-always-saved view in some form; they consider themselves “saved” in the past tense. Once again, your meaning is good and Catholic but your language is Protestant and obscures the meaning.
Clement had no direct authority over the church at Corinth.
Sure it does; “εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη” refers specifically to works of justice (I know the referred Protestant translation here is “righteousness” to obfuscate this point), and it is contrasted to “καλων εργων” (good works) in verse 8.
Abraham was helpless to have children, and could only believe God that He was willing and able to do what he could not do, that”what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Rm. 4:21,22) Likewise sinful man unable to justify himself before a holy and just God, and can only “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” (Rm. 4:24,25)
St. Paul’s point however is not “to describe how man is justified before God” but rather to conclude what he actually concludes, that this particular episode in Abraham’ justification happened without circumcision (Rm 4:10). Were St. Paul giving a broad lesson on justification here, he would not have ignored the crossing of the desert and the sacrifice of Isaac, which both were not manifestation of faith alone.
Abraham was justified by such faith
But not by faith alone because his justification began with crossing the desert and ministering to the Angels of the Trinity, all good works rather than mere faith.
Rm. 4 does NOT only refer to works of the law, nor does Eph. 2:8,9 or Titus 3:5 (written to a Gentile), but broadly contrasts faith and works
Romans 4 refers to circumcision. Eph 2:8-9 contrasts grace and works, not faith and works. titus 3 contrasts works of justice in v 5 to good works verse 8.
Catholics cannot admit any understanding of the Bible that conflicts with the self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium
You are the only one here talking about the Magisterium. I simply show you what the scripture actually says. The scripture does not support justification by faith alone, and in fact you yourself don’t believe in faith that is separated from works. You just stick to the slogan that does not express neither the scripture nor your beliefs.
Annalex: the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around.
Daniel: Wrong, an a fundamental error within Roman Catholicism
Wow, it is rare that the Protestant laughable hermeneutics that ignore the words of Christ in favor to their twisted interpretation of a few passages in St. Paul is admitted to so honestly.
the apostle Paul is the chief revelator and theologian of the N. Covenant
Well, “chief revelators” would be the Evangelists who actually revealed to us the facts of the Christ’s ministry on earth. However, why is it that you think St. Paul reveals something Christ did not teach? Or, if you don’t think that, then why call listening to the words of Christ and understanding St. Paul through them “fundamental error”?
What the texts [Eph 2:8-10] is stating is how one is saved under grace, which is through faith, not of works.
One is saved not “under grace” but “by grace” and grace is “not of works”. We receive grace through faith and we must “walk in the good works”. We are in other words saved by grace alone but not by faith alone, but rather through faith that also walks the good works.
And infants need not baptism
Sure they do, because it is at baptism that God steps into their life and leads them to mature faith. Acts 2:28 refers to baptism of adults; however, the requirements to repent a child fulfills by default, since a child has nothing to repent of.
Good works do not “produce“ faith
Good works produce the habit of self-denial, which is the cornerstone of Christian faith.
Rome affirms sola fide, by a kind of faith what will work
“A kind of faith that will work” is indeed what Catholicism teaches saves us, but that is by definition not “Sola Fide”, since is affirms that works must accompany faith. What you offer in that paragraph is convoluted sophistry to excuse that silly Protestant slogan. You do not believe in Faith Alone. You believe in Faith That Works. That part of your beliefs is perfectly Catholic.
The lost Pharisees hope of reward was not simply for this life
But they were not lost on the account of such hope. They were lost because they denied Christ both personally and by lacking in charity. Remember, Christ never condemned their beliefs but rather the hypocrisy of their works: “All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:3)
unless souls are made to face their sinfulness and moral destitution, and absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness, then they will go one presuming that to some degree or another their morality and or the power of their church will gain them eventual cohabitation with almighty God
Christ gave us Catholics the Church to lead us to the understanding of the “absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness” and to salvation through that. You see a contradiction where there is none. Christ is the goal; Church is the path.
John 6 is such place. 1 Cor. 11 shows that one can become spiritually dead by not eating and drinking “worthily”, so St. Paul understood Christ to mean actual eating and drinking being the Eucharist. Finally, the words of Consecration were “take and eat”. Does the scripture mean anything to you?
But in both cases the Lord made a difference between the flesh and the Spirit, with the latter giving life, showing He was speaking analogically, likening physical birth to spiritual birth, and physically eating to spiritually eating
It is true that one should not understand baptism carnally as merely physical washing or the Eucharist as merely feeding the stomach. You think Catholics don’t understand this?
to presume such kosher Jews would consume Jesus' literal flesh and blood without a word of query […] is absurd
And indeed John 6 contains a lengthy query exactly on this point. Many left, protesting.
in no place do we see a miracle in which Jesus was physically in two places at once, such as being in the disciple's stomachs while sitting before them.
The Last Supper describes such scene “Take and eat, this is my body”. We also have the multiplication of breads and the recognition of Jesus in the bread at Emmaus.
So when Jesus says He is a door, (Jn. 10:9) then Rome holds that a in the church is transubstantiated so that a door is really Jesus while maintaining the appearance of wood?
We don’t because the scripture does not contain a discourse that Jesus is truly, truly door indeed, there is no sacrament where Jesus sits around with the disciples and says “This door is my body, open it” or anything like that; but instead the allegory of the door is quickly replaced by an allegory of a shepherd. We Catholics read the scripture like adults, in short, with our heads on. Learn from us.
He states, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63) Rome explains this away
Rome explains it as the statement that the flesh profits nothing from eating the Eucharist, yet it gives spirit and life. In other words, Jesus means what he says, and we listen and believe, and leave the protesting to you.
nowhere does John or any other writer have eternal life being received by consuming the Lord's supper
It happens in the very chapter you cannot read, John 6:
I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world.
There is indeed a deep connection between Catholic belief in the entirety of Jesus’s teaching and eternal life, including the belief in the Eucharist but not limited just to it, as your quotes show. There is likewise a connection between death and the Protestant disbelief in the Eucharist (1 Cor. 11:29-30).
Instead, we have words such as in the next chapter [on importance of believing Jesus]
So read them and believe. You are the one protesting the faith, not Catholics.
As for losing disciples, those who left Him were those who had come for physical food
Right, and Jesus explained that He will give them Himself instead as He is the bread of life. He did not say that He would give them a way to remember Him in bread, but rather that He is the Bread. That they could not stomach and they left, and you and your co-religionists left with them.
Annalex: we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it.
Daniel: the devil who also took things quire literal
.. and incomplete, like all the Protestant prooftexting. I show you John 6 on the Eucharist, you say, no, let’s read John 7 instead which is not on the Eucharist. Likewise show a Protestant the words of Institution (“this is my body”) and he will say, no, let’s read how it is a “memorial”. Here’s a radical idea for you: read the Scripture.
affirmed that believers are to fulfill their righteousness of the law, which confirms their faith as salvific, but to the degree that they do does not make them morally worthy of eternal life. Do you dispute that you are not?
I don’t know if you can say that without assuming the role of a judge which neither you nor I are. Effectively, the “sheep” who obey Matthew 5-7 end up saved (Matthew 25) because such is the sovereign will of Christ. They are raised to great works and saved because of the election of grace (Eph 1:3-12, Eph 2:2-10, Rm: 8:29-10). Were the works of the saints great in themselves regardless of the will of God or were they great because God deemed them meriting salvation is the kind of question I’ll let German philosophers to ponder. The truth is that a hair does not fall from their heads without God willing it so, so to question merit outside of the will of God is stupid and un-Catholic.
Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, and just what is infallible magisterial teaching is far from settled.
Yes, there is room for healthy debate in the Mother Church. This is another reason to love her.
Annalex: anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".
Daniel: What Roman Catholic church do you belong to? Your own NAB Bible and the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars deny you this assertion, as do most Roman Catholics.
One cannot be Catholic and deny the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, so you are wrong on that.
i have lived all my life in Roman Catholic “country,”
You left the Church and by doing so you chose death. I hope you come back and I ask you to repent and come back.
[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life: [2] For the life was manifested; and we have seen and do bear witness, and declare unto you the life eternal, which was with the Father, and hath appeared to us: [3] That which we have seen and have heard, we declare unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us, and our fellowship may be with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. [4] And these things we write to you, that you may rejoice, and your joy may be full. (John 1)
Annalex: I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water.
Daniel: It is Roman Catholics you are not surrendered to the very Scriptures you condescending use, as they are a secondary authority for them at best…
This does not alter my statement, that the Catholics read the scripture as written and obey it, and Protestants protest it. The denial of the essence of John 6 is a good example: you’d be more comfortable with the Scripture if that part was never written, and if “this is my body” were words never spoken.
Christ says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” which is clearly defined as believing the gospel and living it by His word through the Spirit, but Roman Catholics refuse to accept the Bible interpreting itself and surrender to it
I refuse Protestant charlatans interpreting the Bible for me. I rather go to the source, which is the Holy Catholic Church. Were you with faith you would do the same.
being bound to defend Rome militates against arriving at objective logical conclusions.
I am not the one to whom “is” is not “is” and “food” is not “food”, and for whom “we are not saved by faith alone” becomes its opposite. This is objective and logical conclusion: being Catholic I obey the Scripture as written and you find way to weasel yourself out of it. Yes, the Magisterium helps. So does a course in elementary logic. Catholics are never alone:
The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17)
Protestants are actually typically accused of rejecting the teaching magisterium and just going by Scripture
I accuse the Protestants of not going by Scripture. I think that is rather typical, too.
it is a foundational divine institution (Heb. 6:1) which Protestantism has always practiced
At issue is specifically the self imposed authority of Protestant ministers as opposed to ministerial priesthood, mention in the next verse: “the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of hands”. Compare “grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood”(1Ttim. 4:14)
like the WTC
WT… what?
elevates the opinions of men
Men who are divinely ordained to teach:
Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. (Acts 20:28)
Not Protestant charlatans.
We should be alarmed any teaching that such a faith and condition does not mean it must continue if real, and seek to on to perfection, and do works that will be rewarded, but one cannot do such unless they are first made accepted in the Beloved, to the glory of God.
Very true and Catholic statement.
If you read Matthew 5-7 or Matthew 25:35-36, or Romans 2:7, you will understand that good works are never given as an exhaustive list. Read the Bible once in a while and you will become Catholic or maybe Orthodox.
The way to read these verses is to understand what "brother" and "sister" meant to the speaker, and it did not necessarily mean biological offspring as we today understand the words. This is because we see use of these words in the Bible that clearly is not about biological siblings, e.g. Lot and Abram, or the children of Mary of Cleophas.
On the other hand, that "this is my body" and "my flesh is food indeed" are insisted upon as literal meaning and the apostles understood them literally (1 Cor. 11)
The Eucharist is both communion with God and one another;; I deny that it is ONLY communion with one another. Further, both directions of the communion occur sacramentally rather than on a purely social plane and so they are communion not with the memory but rather with the actual blood shed for us by Christ.
Kosta: There is no objective evidence of that. It's a demand placed on the faithful by the Church since Trent
Well, by faith. It is a fundamental element of Christian faith, and it is not so just because of Trent. It is not by fiat because Trent or no Trent, people are free to leave the Church.
The only thing that was lost was the original understanding of things in Judaism, and their deliberate and forced mutation into something unrecognizable. Without radically changing the meaning of words, misquoting (even rewriting) the Old Testament, etc., Christianity would have no leg to stand on.
Or rather, what the Jews saw darkly the Christians see clearly. Obviously, since the Jewish vision deteriorated further after the loss of the Temple, consulting them today is altogether pointless. I agree, however, that Christianity is a transformation (properly, it is the fulfillment) of Judaism.
myth of "one" church
The Church is of course one as there is but one Christ. Heresies are multiple: they are the "denominations" of today, and so were the ancient heresies.
UNMITIGATED NONSENSE YET AGAIN.
Buit if you read it every day, you'll stay Protestant.
According to a study released in September by Baylor University’s Institute for Studies of Religion, evangelical Protestants are a whopping eight times more likely than Catholics to read the Bible on a weekly basis. Of course, the survey only looked at private Bible reading; it did not take into account the Scripture passages Catholics take in at every Mass. Still, we tip our hats to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ for their zeal for the Word of God.
-- from the National Catholic Register article Get Cracking, Catholics!
The Church should combat widespread "Biblical illiteracy" among the Catholic faithful, Archbishop Eterovic said.
-- from the thread Synod to Focus on Proper Use of Scripture
...while fewer believers know much about the Bible, one-third of Americans continue to believe that it is literally true, something organizers of the Synod on the Word of God called a dangerous form of fundamentalism that is “winning more and more adherents…even among Catholics.” Such literalism, the synod’s preparatory document said, “demands an unshakable adherence to rigid doctrinal points of view and imposes, as the only source of teaching for Christian life and salvation, a reading of the Bible which rejects all questioning and any kind of critical research”....
....The flip side of this embarrassment is the presumption among many Catholics that they “get” the Bible at Mass, along with everything else they need for their spiritual lives. The postconciliar revolution in liturgy greatly expanded the readings, with a three-year cycle in the vernacular that for the first time included Old Testament passages. Given that exposure, many think they do not need anything else. As Mr. McMahon put it, “The majority still say you go to Mass, you get your ticket punched, and that’s it for the week.”
-- from the thread A Literate Church: The state of Catholic Bible study today
Look who's talking!!!!!
They can't seriously be saying that with a straight face, can they?
Are they really that deluded?
Jesse Duplantis the guy who visited heaven and comforted Jesus Christ
Alex Murphy -- do you agree with Jesse on his visit?
Well, I know this much:
So given all of that, do you agree that Jesse Duplantis is a Catholic?
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.