The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

Associated Press ^ | 3/24/01

[RobbyS]

The Catholic Encyclopedia sets out the two basic positions fairly, I think:The Protestant principle is: The Bible and nothing but the Bible; the Bible, according to them, is the sole theological source; there are no revealed truths save the truths contained in the Bible; according to them the Bible is the sole rule of faith: by it and by it alone should all dogmatic questions be solved; it is the only binding authority. Catholics, on the other hand, hold that there may be, that there is in fact, and that there must of necessity be certain revealed truths apart from those contained in the Bible; they hold furthermore that Jesus Christ has established in fact, and that to adapt the means to the end He should have established, a living organ as much to transmit Scripture and written Revelation as to place revealed truth within reach of everyone always and everywhere. I think that the argument over John 6 shows the inadequacy of the New Testament as a "final authority." No book can act in that role. We are, at bottom, dealing with ineffable experiences. Human language is adequate to the purpose. Often when reading the New Testament, I run into the same difficulties that I have when I look at my Mon's old photo album. Onece, long ago, I went through it with her, and she explained them. Now, she is gone, and I have forgotten exactly what she said and even the cryptic notes on the backs of the pictures tell me little.

[RobbyS]

Human language is inadequate to the purpose

[IMRight]

Sorry again. #7398 was for you.

[Havoc]

I recognize (and agree) that he has no special authority beyond where he agrees with what was handed down, but when we disagree about what is handed down, the recognized fathers of the church are good sources for the debate. Certainly more so than your internal inter[r You would rather that we merely accept your personal interpretation of scripture as being the same thing as scripture itself. I have not seen any track record in that regard that would cause me to lean toward your interpretation and away from Augustine. In fact, the last discussion I remember (I think it was the bit about the dead having nothing to do with earth) you kept adding words into the text (in parenthesis). Of course the parenthetical additions made all the difference in interpreting the text. In my Book that isn't kosher. Mine says something about avoiding it. Hope the rest of your evening goes well. :)

That's hot, I just love what you do with accusation as a group. It's an artform by which you pay no attention to the truthfulness of it and at the same time use it to color another person for as much mileage from it you can get. Can't get around the argument - lie about it and distort. I can see where that'd be useful to your side. Scripture sure hasn't been.

[Ard Ri]

Beg to differ ole boy.... I didn`t say Luther WAS the first, I very plainly said he was ONE of the first and better known. I could have taken the statement further by saying that he was one of the first to be successful (with the aid of the Germanic principalities who saw booty for their kingdoms....), but I kept it simple. Where is the difficulty in that statement? Further, why would you find it necessary to ask me if I heard of Wycliffe when I had replied that I had referenced a book that dealt with him ? Can`t speak for anyone else, but I tend to READ the books I reference BEFORE I use them for reference.... I find your attempt to discredit very thin, and on a dollar basis, worth about 3 cents.

[Fury]

THANK YOU for a great post! I will be getting some additional material and the Bibles I use and look forward to responding to your comments.

[Fury]

I recognize (and agree) that he has no special authority beyond where he agrees with what was handed down, but when we disagree about what is handed down, the recognized fathers of the church are good sources for the debate. Certainly more so than your internal inter[r You would rather that we merely accept your personal interpretation of scripture as being the same thing as scripture itself. I have not seen any track record in that regard that would cause me to lean toward your interpretation and away from Augustine. In fact, the last discussion I remember (I think it was the bit about the dead having nothing to do with earth) you kept adding words into the text (in parenthesis). Of course the parenthetical additions made all the difference in interpreting the text. In my Book that isn't kosher. Mine says something about avoiding it. Hope the rest of your evening goes well. :)

And you have hit the mail on the head, so to speak. This comes down to interpretation - and those who disagree with Havoc's interpretation are obviously wrong! :) And why? Because among other things, according to Havoc, they are not Spirit filled, for if they were, they would come to the same conclusions that he does concerning Scripture.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

I think that the argument over John 6 shows the inadequacy of the New Testament as a "final authority."

There goes Robby showing his true colors and general disrespect for the Word of God again. I'd call it blasphemous.

[SoothingDave]

That's hot, I just love what you do with accusation as a group. It's an artform by which you pay no attention to the truthfulness of it and at the same time use it to color another person for as much mileage from it you can get. Can't get around the argument - lie about it and distort. I can see where that'd be useful to your side. Scripture sure hasn't been.

Honestly, Havoc, do you think there's anyone here who doesn't know your opinion of any writer who does not agree with you, of any writing that is not Scripture?

Reggie asked IMRight about Augustine.

IMRight answered about Augustine.

Your interjection of "I don't give a flying fig about Augustine" is rude, if nothing else. Let the boys talk.

SD

[SoothingDave]

I think that the argument over John 6 shows the inadequacy of the New Testament as a "final authority."

There goes Robby showing his true colors and general disrespect for the Word of God again. I'd call it blasphemous.

You have a low threshold for "blasphemy." Recognizing that different people come to different conclusions upon reading the text is called "having your eyes open." It isn't disrespecting the text.

For example, the last few days the NC's here assured me that "the flesh profits nothing" doesn't refer to Jesus' flesh. Now Havoc is here saying that it does. Which of you is right? Why do two "spirit filled" Christians being "led to all truth" come up within different answers?

SD

[al_c]

It may be spring in Oklahoma, but it hasn't really reached this far north yet. :o(

Boy is that the truth. I was in the Twin Cities over the weekend watching my boys play rugby in a driving snowstorm.

Record highs forecast for today in the Big D. Supposed to hit 94 today ... and the air conditioner in my car is still broken. :o( Oh, well ... at least I can look forward to tomorrow when the high will be in the 70s where it should be this time of year. :o)

[al_c]

Good morning, everyone (how 'bout that ... I'm online early for a change!). We have two different sets of readings today ... the normal daily Mass readings and the optional memorial of St. Joseph. The meditation below goes with the daily readings. Enjoy!

Wednesday, May 1, 2002
St. Joseph the Worker (Optional Memorial)

First Reading: Responsorial Psalm: Gospel:

Genesis 1:26-2:3 or Colossians 3:14-15, 17, 23-24 Psalms 90:2-4, 12-14, 16 Matthew 13:54-58 He who labors as he prays lifts his heart to God with his hands.  -- St. Benedict of Nursia

----------

I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him ... bears much fruit. (John 15:5)

First Reading
Acts 15:1-6
Some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question. So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, reporting the conversion of the Gentiles, and they gave great joy to all the brethren. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they declared all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to charge them to keep the law of Moses." The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter.

Responsorial Psalm From
Psalm 122
I was glad when they said to me, "Let us go to the house of the Lord!" Our feet have been standing within your gates, O Jerusalem! Jerusalem, built as a city which is bound firmly together, to which the tribes go up, the tribes of the Lord, as was decreed for Israel, to give thanks to the name of the Lord. There thrones for judgment were set, the thrones of the house of David.

Gospel
John 15:1-8
Jesus said to his disciples, "I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples."

----------

What do you think it means to abide in Jesus? Faith? Trust? Obedience? Yes -- all of these. Can you believe that Jesus wants you to have an intimate relationship with him? Can you hear him imploring you to abide in his love, not so that he will bear fruit and live, but so that you will? Jesus knows that we need to depend on him for all of our wisdom, strength, and hope.

Using the analogy of a vine and its branches, Jesus promised that if we allow his word to find a place in the center of our lives, we can become very fruitful. The converse is just as true: Apart from him, we will wither away and die.

It all sounds so simple. We only need to stay close to him through faith and obedience. And yet, we all know how easy it can be to lose contact with Jesus during the day! Even after praying in the morning, we may get caught up in the pressures and demands of our day and slowly wander away from Jesus and the sustenance he brings. It's especially during these times that we must understand how vital our link to Jesus is, and that we do everything we can to maintain it.

When situations threaten to rob us even a little bit, let us pray that Jesus will come to us immediately and restore us to his presence. Abiding in Jesus is the highest privilege that any of us can know, and it is always ours. All God asks is that we practice remaining in him. In the midst of our day, we can take steps to hold on to Jesus. It really is possible to remain continuously intimate with the Master!

"Holy Spirit, please nudge me during the day to remain present to Jesus through faith, trust, and obedience. I know that without Jesus, I can bear no fruit for God's kingdom; I will wither and die."

----------

God bless.

AC

[SoothingDave]

Re 7368

You are basing your "beliefs" on an event which took place after the "final supper". Retroactive Scripture?

The Resurrection is rather the central point of the Book, of the existence of the world, actually. So yeah, when considering the memorial Jesus instituted for us to keep after His Resurrection, we consider the Resurrection.

What I am talking about is that when we celebrate the Eucharist we receive from Heaven the Body and blood of Christ. This is not his everyday human body. It is his glorified body. He was risen! Alleluia!

This glorified Body is intact. the Blood and Body are not seperate. Do you think Jesus in Heaven right now is exsanguinated?

Do you think Jesus in Heaven right now is the same as the physical body he had on earth?

No. What did I just say? He has a glorified body. This means he has the same type of body we will have after we re resurrected. Ya know, putting on immortality and incorruption.

Now, answer me. Do you think Jesus in Heaven is exsanguinated?

SD

[biblewonk]

Hail the co-redeemer.

[SoothingDave]

Re 7371

Let's say I have milk and cookies. If I drop the cookies on the floor the milk gets spoiled. Likewise, if I spill the milk the cookies grow mold.

Listen to this old thick one. If you drink the milk you are not eating the cookies! If you are eating the cookies you are not drinking the milk. Get it? Your statement above does not change this fact.

If they are linked in despoilage, they are linked period. If an action to the bad on one affects both, then an action to the good on one affects both.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Hail the co-redeemer.

Usually we just say "thanks for the dialy readings, Al"

SD

[SoothingDave]

Re 7376

Honestly, angelo, I would have expected something more substantial from you. When you asked the question, you asked "why do you think." My response is what I think but I believe it is consistent with what the Church has always believed and taught. Would you like me to cite a source? If so, are there particular sources that you would prefer or that you would not accept?

Technically, angleo asked where we find support in the Bible for our beliefs (that a man must be ordained in order to consecrate).

SD

[al_c]

Hail the co-redeemer.

You're welcome, wonk. ;o)

[biblewonk]

Hail the Co-mediatrix.

[SoothingDave]

Re 7381

If Jesus at the Last Supper could not hold Himself in His Hands, what kind of deity is that?

He wasn't holding himself. Remember "The flesh profiteth nothing" - "this is my flesh". Wow. How dare one transpose two such things - huh? If the flesh profiteth nothing, how do you suppose eating the flesh profiteth anything?

See guys? You spent all that time telling me that "the flesh profit nothing" didn't mean the flesh of Jesus. Now Havoc contradicts that. Which is it? Who is right?

Which one of you spirit filled Christians who are led into all truth is right here?

And who wants to claim that John 6 is easiily understood?

The scriptures surely do not say that eating Jesus Body gains one anything.

Just "life within." No biggie.

He Said the Spirit is that which profiteth and his words were spiritual ie it is the spiritual issue that profits here - not the eating of bread and drinking of wine but the partaking in the Spiritual truth that Christ being risen is our redemption.

Why does Jesus' words being "spirit and life" mean they are not to be taken literally? Is "spirit" supposed to mean the same thing as "symbolic?" If so, can you provide another Scriptural example of this?

Matthew 4:4 "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He's imparting a spiritual truth, not a fleshly one. You can't see the forest for the trees.

Who's talking about "bread alone?" I am talking about the "True flesh" of the Savior. Jesus calls himself the Bread of Life. To answer that with "man shall not live by bread alone" seems strange to me.

SD