Oh, I thought you said mums; never mind.....
Posted on 01/03/2006 9:34:40 AM PST by Esther Ruth
Vatican Says Jerusalem "Issue" is Too Important to Leave to Israel, PA 19:15 Jan 03, '06 / 3 Tevet 5766
(IsraelNN.com) The legal counsel of the Vatican in Israel, the priest David Jaeger, said today that Jerusalem is too important of an "issue" to be left to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Jaeger further expressed criticism of Israeli policy regarding holy sites in the country.
"The issue of Jerusalem," the representative of the Roman Catholic Church said, "is to important to leave in the hands of the Israelis and the Palestinians."
The Catholic Church has been making efforts to obtain historical sites in Jerusalem of late, but without public successes.
Nuns are pretty much the female equivalent to monks: An order which seeks to devote itself to God instead of "worldly things," living together in a monestary or convent away from the cares of the world. In their view, this includes separating themselves from marriage, and instead being "married to God," as it were. The closest Jewish equivalent that I can think of off the top of my head are the Essenes, though I don't think they forbade marriage.
The difference between monks and nuns is primarily that monks are ordained priests, authorized to carry out all of the sacraments of the Roman Catholic faith, while nuns, being women, are not.
That is an interesting question, but once the English Prelates removed themselves from the Authority of the Roman Catholic Faith, the laying on of hands was no longer valid. Their are some groups in the Orthodox Church that are in the same situation. The Anglicans have the historical continuity, but the spiritual gifts were lost when they placed themselves out of the authority of the Western Church. Besides, Anglicans are not even sure what they believe, it changes from one person to another.
Be very careful....Holy Tradition was valid in the Ancient Church, and it is STILL valid today.....
"Says Who? The Christian Holy Sites in and around Jerusalem were established, built and maintained for nearly 2 millenia by the Roman Catholic Church and the Ortthodox Churches. We had over 1100 years of guarding these holy sites before there ever was a Christian Church apart from Rome and Constantinople"
Well now..this should get interesting....So..the amount of time in an occupation or settlement of land should dictate 'permanent' ownership? I will remind you, that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox split into quite a few factions after Martin Luther..hence we are all still Christians..hence all have a sense of belonging and being attached to our holy sites.
As I relayed to a Palestinian one time who was bitching and complaining about land, etc. and somehow tried to tie emotionally to our settlement of America and the Native Indians, etc.. I reminded him that my ancestors came from Scotland and were wealthy landowners until Robert Roy MacGregor(the darling of hollywood) came and rape all of our women..stole our cattle and took our lands!! Do I have an 'entitilement' to my ancient lands in Scotland now?
Of course not. I have an emotional tie to Scotland to cherish..a rich history..that's it. No Christian Church owns our holy sites in Jerusalem...they are 'owned' emotionally by the entire Christian family.
[Yeshua] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition." (Mark 7:9)See here an article I wrote on the subject.Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to the Messiah. (Col. 2:8)
But these holy sites have been places of worship for 1800 years are, for that reason, are dear to Christians. As for the prophecies, I believe that we will understand what they mean only after they have happened. We are like the men on the way to Emmaus, who had read the Scriotures their whole lives and had witnessed the events of the passion but understood nothing until Our Lord explained it all to them. And they did not even recognize him unti the breaking of the bread. THEN their lives were changed forever, then they were new men.
Oh, I agree with you on that. But one way of singing our "Mystery of Faith" is "When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death Lord Jesus, until you come in Glory." I guess it's a Catholic thing. But since I believe that God exists out of time (another mystery), I believe that his coming again is ALSO "Now" to him, just as much as the time of the crucifixion. "I know my Redeemer Liveth" to quote a famous aria from The Messiah, also the inscrription on the tomb of Handel.
Yes, well, more and more the Pope is recognized as the spiritual leader of all Christendom, even by those who do not recognize his pontifical authority. I accept your point that there are more important things than who laid hands on whom.
Once my solution is put into practice the grass will be a lot greener in Jerusalem. Trust me.
Friend:
Do you realize that the Church existed almost 400 years before the Canon of Scripture was put together?
Holy Tradition is nothing more than the oral teachings of the Apostles and Church Fathers that were handed down in oral form. These were never put into writing.
The Bible was created for the Church, not the other way around.
You are wrong, Sir.
There are documented writings about how St. Helena, (Mother of Constantine the Great) discovered the tomb of Christ, etc. and other Holy places. The Byzantine Empire kept VERY good records.
Holy Tradition is nothing more than the oral teachings of the Apostles and Church Fathers that were handed down in oral form. These were never put into writing.
Any tradition faithfully passed by the Apostles would reflect their own Torah-observant, Jewish background. The RCC tradition does not. Further, no tradition would violate the written Scriptures, as RCC tradition does. If you want examples, I suppose I can flog the dead horse again.
The Bible was created for the Church, not the other way around.
The Bible was made for the Church, not by the Church. The Church is the servant of Scripture, not its master.
1. I am not Roman Catholic, but Eastern Orthodox. One half of the ORIGINAL CHURCH established by Jesus Christ.
2. The decision on which books went into the Canon of Scripture was made with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at the Council of Nicea. Holy Tradition does not contradict scripture. Any part of the Roman Catholic Faith that does, came after the Schism of 1054 AD.
But I am curious, just what tradition is it that YOU believe violates or contradicts scripture?
"One cannot have God as his Father, who does not have the Holy Catholic Church (not Roman) as his Mother!"
St. Cyprian of Carthage 510 AD
Forgive me for jumping in Buggman.....but I cannot pass this up!
How about Matthew 28:1, in the original Greek, [Now late on Sabbath as it was getting dusk toward first of week came Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre]. Verse 6 says, [He is not here for He has risen as He said. Come see the place where was lying the Lord]. notice the past tense.
The above is the only definitive place in scripture that says when he arose from the tomb.....and it was on the Sabbath, late in the afternoon.
The tradition of most of organized Christianity today ignores this and continues their Sunday celebrations.
Oh, if only someone would ask me that :)
Oh, I thought you said mums; never mind.....
It is rare to see so much truth in such few words.
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.