Posted on 06/21/2006 5:15:34 AM PDT by MountainMenace
COLUMBUS, OHIO (6/20/06)-The House of Deputies of the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church today overwhelmingly refused to even consider a resolution that affirmed Jesus Christ as the "only name by which any person may be saved."
(Excerpt) Read more at virtueonline.org ...
You know, I hear this argument all the time but the plain and simple fact of Scripture is that neither God nor Christ wrote one literal single word in the Bible. I know, I know, what you're going to counter with: "divine inspiration" so I counter back with was it "divine inspiration" that sparked the inquisition? The Dark Ages? Ignorance that led to burning of witches and the resistance of scientific thought? I actually prefer today's "WWJD" expression as a stand in for the literal black-and-white interpretation of the Bible. Christ, IMHO, taught forgiveness as a way to salvation and made the love of God personal to all mankind (even repentant Muslims that depart from Mohammad's Islamic hate and violence).
There is Dogma, Doctrine, Teaching, and Law.
Dogma can never change, and I hate to tell the Episcopalians, but the Trinity is Dogma, and it can never be changed. Most of the Dogma can be found in the Nicene Creed, although not everything in the creed is Dogmatic.
Doctrines are belief systems that flow from the Dogma and from the scripture. Things that we believe, like the Sacraments. Doctrines are not likely to change. Some of the saints are known as Doctors of the Church because they developed or revealed things that we've found so important as to be doctrinal. Again, Doctrine MAY change, but it is unlikely.
Teachings are the ways in which we present dogma and doctrine to each new generation. These things may indeed change, as it is right to teach the newcomers in ways that they can relate to and understand.
Laws are canonical rules meant to protect the dogma and doctrines. They may be changed, and often should be. Laws are where a church runs into the problem of being pharisaical. The Pharisee (or Rabbinical or today, Orthodox) sect created so many rules as a 'hedge of protection' around the Mosaic Law that they became almost impossible for an individual to keep. Keep one and by keeping it, break another. This is how I fear our country is governed today.
This is just how I learned this in RCIA, and I think it's interesting.
Well, I'm glad that you have pride in your faith, but the word "catholic" does indeed mean universal. Saying the creed (Apostles or Nicene) with the intention of meaning only the Roman church would mean that you exclude belief that Christ was for all Christian churches, would it not?
Exactly right. No part of the Deposit of Faith can be contradictory, else they would not be inspired.
There is NOTHING in Catholic dogma that contradicts Sacred Scripture.
There is PLENTY in Catholic dogma that contradicts what some people believe about Sacred Scripture.
There is even more that is believed taught as Catholic dogma (but, upon investigation, is NOT Catholic dogma) that contradicts Sacred Scripture.
The trick is discerning the difference.
His body given for us, as in sacrificed, dying on the cross.
This is your plain reading of Scripture? Is this the only possible interpretation?
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Poured out for us, as in bleeding and dying on the cross for our sins.
Ditto. Is this the only possible way to look at it? Is it impossible that God meant to do more here?
It's pure symbolism, yes, we do it in memory of Him, but to then claim men in robes have the power to actually convert bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ is really reaching a bit.
Not if that is what Christ did, and if that is what He tasked the Apostles with doing.
Who helped you reach your interpretation and why should we be convinced that it is the one and only true interpretation?
SD
Priests do not COMMAND anything of Jesus. They are simply standing in His stead, and calling down His Holy Spirit to make the bread and wine be His Body and Blood, just as HE commanded of his Apostles, at the Last Supper,
DOn't bite down, you'll hurt Jesus.
Nope. We believe that all who are Christian are joined by virtue of their baptism into the one, universal Catholic church. To the extent that their beliefs differ from the Church's teaching this union is imperfect, yet unseverable. There is only one Church.
SD
Satan laughing spreads his wings
Amen (Ah-men), brother, amen!
Episcopal.
Sorry, should have made that clear.
We joined an Evangelical Presbyterian Church a few years ago. It’s a great church biblically sound, but growing up in a Pentecostal Church the one thing that bothered me about the EPC was their repeating the Apostles Creed. The two things I did not agree with is, 1) Christ went to hell after his crucifixion when I believe the proper location was Abraham,s Bosom, and the other disagreement I had was 2) the mention of the catholic church when I am not catholic, nor is the Presbyterian Church. I was bothered by this for some time. I’m not sure what the true belief is among the Presbyterians on the first one, but as for the term catholic church I wrote a letter to the Bible Answer man program and received a letter that explained that it is a small “c” and represents the Church of Christ, not any particular denomination such as the Roman Catholic Church.
There is only one downtown church that is thriving in Pittsburgh. It's an ELCA church.
That's what we were always taught. That's why I am not understanding this.
Insults, is that what you are taught ?
I'll pray for you !
Where have I insulted you?
SD
Just curious, what denomination were you previously? Lutheran?
19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me."
His body given for us, as in sacrificed, dying on the cross.
This is your plain reading of Scripture? Is this the only possible interpretation?
Well, since he was about to DIE and shed His BLOOD
and become the SAVIOR of the world as a
SACRIFICE for all our sins, then what else could
he be talking about ? Not about changing bread
into himself.
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.
Poured out for us, as in bleeding and dying on the cross for our sins.
Ditto. Is this the only possible way to look at it? Is it impossible that God meant to do more here?
Ditto
It's pure symbolism, yes, we do it in memory of Him, but to then claim men in robes have the power to actually convert bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ is really reaching a bit.
Not if that is what Christ did, and if that is what He tasked the Apostles with doing.
He said "do this in MEMORY of Me", not do this and
then claim you have turned this peice of bread into
Me, so others may receive me through this coverted
bread.
Who helped you reach your interpretation and why should we be convinced that it is the one and only true interpretation?
If you actually read the New Testament, you'll see Jesus uses symbolism and parables a lot and it would not make sense for Him to do this often, except for this one occasion and then not fully explain it.
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.