Posted on 01/21/2013 9:12:42 AM PST by marshmallow
At the Angelus, Benedict XVI invites prayers for Week dedicated to Christian Unity (18-25 January). This year's theme, "What the Lord requires of us" (cf. I 6.6 to 8), was chosen and developed by an ecumenical group in India. On January 25, Vespers at St. Paul Outside the Walls, along with representatives of the Christian Churches. A prayer for peace for "an end to the massacres of unarmed civilians, to all violence, and to find the courage of dialogue and negotiation."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "One of the most serious sins that disfigures the face of the Church is its visible lack of unity, especially the historical divisions that have separated Christians and which have not yet been completely resolved." This is what Benedict XVI said in his reflection before the Angelus prayer with pilgrims gathered in St. Peter's Square. The Pope's words are due to the fact that for more than 100 years, 18 to 25 January, the Christian world celebrates the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, "a moment - explained the pope - always welcome by believers and communities, which awakens in all the desire and spiritual commitment to full communion".
Experts often say that the ecumenical momentum in Churches - especially non-Catholic ones- is fading. But Benedict XVI fondly remembers "the vigil I celebrated about a month ago, in this square, with thousands of young people from across Europe and the ecumenical community of Taizé: a moment of grace in which we experienced the beauty of being one in Christ. " The young people of Taizé in fact wanted to celebrate their European meeting at the end of 2012 in Rome.
The pope encouraged "everyone to pray together so that we can achieve," What the Lord requires of us "(cf. I 6.6 to 8), as this year's........
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
39“Don’t stop him!” Jesus said. “No one who performs miracles in my name will soon be able to speak evil of me. 40Anyone who is not against us is for us. 41If anyone gives you even a cup of water because you belong to the Messiah, I assure you, that person will be rewarded.
The church has one name it is The Bride of Jesus Christ. The body is formed from many nations, tribes, and even different churches. The splitting off from The Roman Catholic Church in a disagreement is as natural as the split and division of Paul and Barnabas over John Mark. This disagreement would send both men filled with the Spirit to minister to different places. It was later reconciled. The Protestant Reformation has lead to believers splitting off and The Gospel reaching many more nations as indeed has happened. Neither as such is wrong and both will be reconciled in GOD's time not ours. Their works, their successes, and fruits, or these churches glorifing GOD.
Now within both Protestant and yes within Catholic sects their are some rogue sects who's works are not good fruits. They do one or more of the following, do not teach The Gospel, Do not follow the Commandments both of GOD & Christ, and some do not acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ {meaning they say He was a good man but not Savior}. They seek to destroy believers and The Word Of GOD. As such they are the pro-abortions groups, the anti-prayer groups, the pro gay marriage groups, etc which do indeed exist in both Protestant and Catholic churches. A few of such churches their main focus is protesting basic Christian rights.
The churches staying true to The Gospel but have differing dogma, charters, church rules, etc are not the ones we need to condemn the actions of.
I didn’t say I believed it. I said I read it. When brother xzins spoke to my heart I realized I was wrong for what I did.
Fair enough.
Pax Vobiscum
I find it horrifically sad that a post on Christian unity devolves into name-calling and bickering within 25 posts.
Shame on you all who call yourselves Christ-followers and yet engage in this kind of behavior!
Shame on you all!
We are in agreement.
I am hearing very bad things from family in the military vis-a-vis the Chaplains Corps. What are your sources saying?
And to you (To be honest I had to look it up)
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
I am hearing that chaplains who stand for traditional Christianity of any denomination are being pressed on all fronts. My sense is that the system has long wanted to rid itself of chaplains and that it has walked a fine legal interpretation for decades. When challenged as a violation of church and state, the courts ruled that the chaplaincy was the best answer for making it possible for our troops to fully practice their religious faith. In other words, if you don’t have a priest/minister/pastor who is fully ordained present, then the troops cannot truly practice their faith, and the right to worship is not something the state can take from them at such a time as their very lives are on the line.
This issue with homosexuality is trying to draw a line of distinction between a chaplain’s religious duties and his general duties.
Since the chaplaincy was preserved legally due to its religious duties, chaplains probably need to draw back regarding the general duties they have accepted: general counseling, training, alternate eyes on the morale of the troops.
Chaplains actually have no requirement to perform marriages other than as a representative of their denomination. They need to forego all weddings in which the parties will not identify with their denomination. They probably should withdraw from all non-religious ceremonies that request a chaplain to engage in a “public religion” type prayer or comment.
Yet Eusebius in his “History of the Church” says the first Bishop of Rome was Linus. And he was 1700 years closer to the fact. He never says anything about Peter being a bishop of Rome.
We haven't been doing that. We should do that.
Dman, red — you two are sincere in having a united front. But it didn’t take more than 6 posts for us to get the same old, same old...
sorry, but Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t really included — as DManA says, unity on core issues.
Do you even know anything about history? Emperor Constantine did nothing of the sort you claim
Constantine was the second Roman Emperor to remove the ban on Christianity by the Edict of milan in 313 AD -- his co-Emperor did it one year earlier in the West
And Christianity was not the official religion of the Roman Empire until Augustus Theodosius II in 395 AD
This is just one of the innumerable errors in your post
Please read the Bible and history. It will open your eyes and stop the rejection of Christ’s divinity and the denial of the Holy Trinity
Catholics do not say and spell that out...That's why there can be no unity between Catholics and Christians...
Yea, 2000 years of same old.
To the Pope “Unity” only means admit you were wrong and submit top my authority.
He had some Christian affections and leanings, and viewed them as a positive force, but most of the evidence shows him as not having a great understanding of theology. The calling of the the Nicene council was to stop the infighting between Christians (imagine the FR religion forum set large with armed bands).
The Orthodox have called him (at times) equal to the Apostles in that they viewed him as the second founder of Rome. However his Arian leanings were well known even back then.
You wrote:
“Yet Eusebius in his “History of the Church” says the first Bishop of Rome was Linus. And he was 1700 years closer to the fact. He never says anything about Peter being a bishop of Rome.”
Really? Book III, chapter 1 and chapter 2:
Chapter 1. The Parts of the World in which the Apostles preached Christ.
2. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis.
Chapter 2. The First Successor to St. Peter in Rome.
1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.
It’s also in my Penguin edition - page 65.
Are you sure you have a clue as to what you’re talking about?
Where in your excerpt does it say a thing about Peter ever being Bishop of Rome? He came to Rome, but so did millions of others including Paul, who has just as strong a claim to being a Bishop of Rome based on this excerpt as Peter. Please note, Chapter headings were added by the editor. So, are you sure you have a clue as to how to read?
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.