Posted on 09/30/2003 9:32:47 AM PDT by Fifthmark
I report.........
.....YOU decide!
That is the description TODAY . We were discussing the purification of Mary from the sin of childbirth .
No, you brought the Churching of Women into it.
In the Jewish law (Lev. XII.) women for forty days after the birth of a boy, and for eighty after that of a girl,were regarded as unclean and kept out of the temple,
Is "unclean" the same as "sinful"? I certainly don't understand these Biblical concepts as being identical.
As I had said originally that a woman that had given birth was considered sinful
Not in the Catholic Church.
That was my experience..I had to stand in the back of the church ..be sprinkled with holy water and have the priest pray , only then could i enter the church . So if you want to call it a "blessing" I had to be forgiven before i could enter the church.
Until you can quote a part of the ceremony to me showing how it pertained to "forgiveness" I refuse to accept your assertion, since I believe it entirely baseless. The Rituale Romanum I noted the title from is in my possession and dates to 1888. One of my old handmissals notes:
"The blessing of a woman after childbirt is a very ancient observance. It recalls the Jewish rite of purification, to which Our Lady submitted herself. But no idea of purification is contained in the Christian rite, for honorable childbearing is wholly without taint: "churching" is an act of thanksgiving and prayer for mother and child." (Layman's Missal)
"It is customary for mothers to go to church with their child as soon as they are able to go out to be churched. The ceremony consists in a special blessing which recalls the visit of the Holy Family at the Temple of Jerusalem for the Presentation of Our Lord and the Purification of the Blessed Virgin." (The St. Andrew Daily Missal)
Yes and she sent them to Hell
No human alive has such power, nor has any who are dead ever had such power, but Christ alone.
without knowing the gospel.
How do you know?
How do you know the man wanted to die a hindi?
Actually, I'm sure he didn't. Given where she lived (Calcutta), he probably fervently hoped to die a Bengali. I don't know of many people who want to change their ethnicity before their death.
She never offered him the gospel
How would you know? Were you there next to them?
I thought you did not believe in salvation by law keeping?.Actually Romens teaches that no man is justified by the law..the written law or the law on their heart,
The Law both Jewish and Natural includes faith in and worship of the True God. Any one non-Jew who has not heard the Gospel who follows the natural religion given to Adam and Noah, worshipped in by Melchizedek, spoken of by Job, and preached by Jonah can achieve salvation by following the natural law written on their hearts by means of grace, given by God who knows His own, and to whom He has made known Himself. You seem very eager to forget that God is not just the God of Abraham, but also the God of Nachor (Genesis 31.53), and in fact, the God of all descendants of Adam and Noah. Niether the Old Testament nor History give any reason to limit God's actions to the Jews alone.
No man comes to the Father BUT BY ME
I don't disagree. But you are too cocksure about who does know the Father and the Son and who does not.
Your Post #2976 was exceptional, I thought. Bloody-well exceptional. Worthy, almost, of the original 16th-Century Jesuits.
I told him, of course, that while the Jesuits are a far cry from what they used to be (as all will admit), I have a grudging adversarial respect for the Jesuit Order -- considering that they were originally founded for the main purpose of answering the onslaught of the Calvinists, who were winning entirely too many Debates and Exchanges of Correspondences for the comfort of Rome; at least until the organization of the Jesuit Order to counter us Calvinists (this is, as I advised him, the "quick and dirty" version of history; but it is not entirely inaccurate). As such, I did advise my friend to expect top-quality Instructors in Logic, which is (as I understand, not being a computer-geek myself) generally related to his degree program in terms of Formulation and Programming Architecture.
That's merely a personal anecdote on my part; I thought I would share it in the meanwhile, but your #2976 deserves a better response than that (which I shall attempt over the weekend).
While I should warn you in advance, that, in claiming that "The real Calvinist-Catholic dichotomy appears over whether or not God gives the sufficient means of salvation to all because of His love for all... or whether God gives the means of salvation only to the elect because of His love only for the elect (Calvinist position)", you have yet again misunderstood and misrepresented the Calvinist Argument in terms of the actuating distinction (this is critical) between gratia efficax and gratia mere sufficiens... at least you are familiar with the terms involved in a proper, Patristically-informed, discussion of the Biblical Doctrine of Predestination.
I do confess that I become a little sad, and frustrated, and disillusioned with debating Roman Catholics who claim, in essence, "oh, that Predestination business, that's a Calvinist thing -- we Roman Catholics don't believe in that!!" (as though they were modern theologically un-anchored Non-Denominationalists, who have not even studied the Sermons of the Fathers); or those Roman Catholics who wave their hands in the air and exclaim, "Mystery! Mystery!! It's all a Mystery!!" as though Scripture and Magisterium were SILENT on the matter (when in fact we know that they are NOT silent -- just like "Salvation" or "Baptism" or "Sanctification" or "Glorification", "Predestination" is a Holy-Spirit-chosen-Word on which the Bible and Tradition do provide a great and useful measure of Information and Instruction).
So while I do think that you have yet again misunderstood and misrepresented the Calvinist Argument in terms of the actuating distinction between gratia efficax and gratia mere sufficiens...
That said, yes -- I do have a lot to answer. As I said, your post was very good (better than I have come to expect of Romanists, I daresay!!). I honestly maintain that I did not intend to artificially shift the "burden of proof" upon you (I was overly enthusiastic at worst, not intentionally duplicitous), but I admit your criticisms as legitimate and demanding of my counter-citations (I'll probably start with Ecumenical Council of Orange, 529AD, though I may go back to Chalcedon and prior).
Before I respond, though (hopefully this weekend), I do admit a curiosity -- as to yourself, within which of the three great Schools of Romanistic theology on the matter of Predestination do you find yourself?
Molinist, Thomist, or Augustinian?
I shan't hold your answer against you, and I shall respond to your #2976 regardless, as soon as I am able. My curiosity is my own.
Your #2976 was excellent, and deserves a response; and at the very least, I OWE you a response regarding your (probably uninformed and unintentional) misrepresentation of the Calvinist Argument concerning gratia efficax and gratia mere sufficiens...
But in the meanwhile, I do admit my own curiosity as to your Theological Position -- Augustinian, Thomist, or Molinist?
I think that's a fair question on my part. After all, I wear my own Theological Position on my sleeve (in fact, I advertise it by my screen-name).
best, OP
Nor am I going out of my way to compliment Jesus here (what need has He of MY approval)? But I must give the proper Dues.
Matthew 11 is rightfully called "the Hammer of Augustine", and it is true that Augustine picked up the ball, ran with it, and has been un-answered for sixteen centuries.
But Augustine did not write Matthew 11; Jesus did. And to this day, Matthew 11 likely remains the most theologically-airtight syllogism which I have ever encountered in the entire Bible. Far be it from the Logos to pronounce a syllogism which was anything less than Logically-perfect. Augustine may have run the ball down to the end-zone, but the Logos authored the play.
Mea Culpa; Correction advanced.
best, OP
This is an "all about me " post Dave ..."God wants me to enjoy life"..I read the gospel to say give up your life..pick up your cross..leave your family..
But all of that still begs the question. Jesus said love me with ALL your heart etc..Just as He knew we could not do that because we are sinful and selfish creatures. I especially liked the line of God " begrudging" you some fun, as if it is your right He would take from you .:>) The only thing God owes us is Hell..everything else is His mercy .
This teaching (like the Law) shows us what sinners we are..and that we need a Savior
Seeing your need to go to a priest ever two weeks ..you must not be His then correct?
We say Christ is sacrificed bloodily once, and that the sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody re-presentation of the sacrifice of the Cross. We do not sacrifice Christ "anew".
YOUR church has traditionally defined it as the un-bloody sacrifice of Calvary .
I agree with that, but I disagree strongly with the idea that she was able to reason between what she was doing as being "wrong" and what is "right". She isn't doing it out of malicious spite to God aside from His commandments, therefore, it is not a true sin.
I agree with that, but I disagree strongly with the idea that she was able to reason between what she was doing as being "wrong" and what is "right". She isn't doing it out of malicious spite to God aside from His commandments, therefore, it is not a true sin.
The Jews had to offer a sin sacrifice for "unintentional sin" . ..That aside..the quote you disagreed with was they are born speaking lies..I did not say that I knew if it is accountable sin BEFORE they know "it is wrong" which is not usually long (mom or dad correct or punish her) , That was not the point..the point was that infants have an inborn ability /desire to sin without having to be taught.
I wrote;
Adam and Eve were not created Holy..they were innocent .
You wrote
Sure they could have. If God can create Adam and Eve sinless and full of grace, He can create Mary full of grace and free of original sin. Her parents had nothing to do with it. Freedom from original sin comes from grace, since original sin is the lack of grace in the newborn soul.
The point being that Adam and Eve were created not born..and when they were created their was no sin in the world.
Where is "avenge himself upon Jerusalem" in Chapter 17?
Where is Jesus in OT prophecy?
I do agree that we are to pray "without ceasing" That is a general teaching of scripture..but the particular verse you cited had a specific application..(Which I pointed out)
This is not what you originally said.
The original discussion was the context of that verse as part of our watching for Christ..and 18:1 being a part of the verse 17 discourse and a mis use of scripture if you intent it as a proof text for your point
You the questioned the connection between Vs. 17 and 18
If you read the sentence above you will see that what I said I pointed out was the misuse of the verse.
Ummm ... what about the Serpent then?
I believe the Catholic position is that the Angels had already fallen.
Where is Jesus in OT prophecy?
In all of it.
If you read the sentence above you will see that what I said I pointed out was the misuse of the verse.
You claim a misuse of the verse. I deny it. The very point is repeated several times elsewhere with zero "context" concerning the end of the world.
Agreed but how will they know unless they are sent ?
without knowing the gospel.
How do you know?
The absence of her testimony to it. The fact that she encouraged the Hinds to use the name of their god as they died.
Actually, I'm sure he didn't. Given where she lived (Calcutta), he probably fervently hoped to die a Bengali. I don't know of many people who want to change their ethnicity before their death
But you do not know for sure..and it is too late to find out .
She never offered him the gospel
How would you know? Were you there next to them?
You your seif said
Her charism was not to preach Christ to people who did not wish to hear it, although she gladly preached and baptized all who evidenced an interest (she nicknamed her baptisms of the unconscious she found on death's door "Peter's Passport").(post 3037)
She may have called it "Peters Passport" But I doubt that it was a passport past the Judge Jesus .
The Law both Jewish and Natural includes faith in and worship of the True God. Any one non-Jew who has not heard the Gospel who follows the natural religion given to Adam and Noah, worshipped in by Melchizedek, spoken of by Job, and preached by Jonah can achieve salvation by following the natural law written on their hearts by means of grace, given by God who knows His own, and to whom He has made known Himself. You seem very eager to forget that God is not just the God of Abraham, but also the God of Nachor (Genesis 31.53), and in fact, the God of all descendants of Adam and Noah. Niether the Old Testament nor History give any reason to limit God's actions to the Jews alone.
I am interested in what the Rabbi Paul taught.Not the OT
Romans 2
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
This speaks specifically to the gentile , that they will be judged on their disobedience in relationship to their limited understanding of the Law.
Rom 2:13 (For not the hearers of the law [are] just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
Rom 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
Rom 2:15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and [their] thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
Man instinctively knows the law..it is written on the heart of all men..It is that law written on their heart that condemns them. All cultures value things like honesty, compassion, justice (the divine law written on their heart).So with out the law they are a law unto themselves. Their practice of some good deeds and their aversion to the evil ones show they have an inner knowledge of Gods laws. It is that very innate law that pricks their conscience , that will be the witness against them on judgment day .
The instinctive knowledge produces guilt and an innate knowledge of God's laws activates a warning system when they CHOOSE to ignore that warning system or disobey the law, they have an accountability for that sin. The simple fact is no man can keep the " natural law "perfectly any more than they can the written law..
If that be not the case, we condemn men to hell by giving them the gospel..because by your reckoning without it they are saved by their ignorance of the law (Rather like guaranteeing an infants salvation by abortion).
Jesus gave a command to go and teach the gospel to all men . He taught the necessity to be born again .
From Matthew Henry
Their thoughts the meanwhile, metaxy alleµloµn among themselves, or one with another. The same light and law of nature that witnesses against sin in them, and witnessed against it in others, accused or excused one another. Vicissim, so some read it, by turns; according as they observed or broke these natural laws and dictates, their consciences did either acquit or condemn them. All this did evince that they had that which was to them instead of a law, which they might have been governed by, and which will condemn them, because they were not so guided and governed by it. So that the guilty Gentiles are left without excuse. God is justified in condemning them. They cannot plead ignorance, and therefore are likely to perish if they have not something else to plead.
No man comes to the Father BUT BY ME
I don't disagree. But you are too cocksure about who does know the Father and the Son and who does not.
I am sure what the scriptures teach about it .
Jhn 11:25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
Jhn 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
In all of it.
Including this?
Douay-Rheims
The Book of Psalms
Psalm 68
Salvum me fac, Deus.
Christ in his passion declareth the greatness of his sufferings, and the malice of his persecutors the Jews; and foretelleth their reprobation.
9 I am become a stranger to my brethren, and an alien to the sons of my mother.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(This is a repeat of my post #2990 but you must have missed it.)
Is it not true that an unclean person can not come into the presence of God? Can a sinful person come into the presence of God ?
Was the need of the cleansing by the blood of the sacrificed animal not a foreshadow of Christ and our need for Him to cleanse us?
In all of it.
We agree He is there from the beginning..But the Jews do not see it, because most prophecy is hidden and not direct ( I think) and thus it is not a surprise that the words of Jesus the prophet are veiled or that they are layered like an onion and may cover more than one event ....(as I would claim is the case in ch 17)
I didn't miss it. Brethren = his fellow Israelites who rejected Him. Mother = the "Church" of Israel.
If you want to hold this to mean natural sons of Mary, you will need to explain how St. James the Greater (an Apostle, and supposed "brother" of the Lord), could be both an alien to Christ and one of the twelve.
Some time, it might be worth asking the Jews who they think is the Angel of Great Council in Isaiah 9, the person of the Theophanies, etc.
The Jews too, know of a Word of God and the Holy Spirit. I think their misunderstanding is over the philosophical terms of "homoousia", "hypostasis", etc., and the personal identification of Jesus Christ as the incarnate God.
You might find this interesting:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.24.en.jewish_and_christian_orthodox_dialogue.htm
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.