Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Still, it is typical convert to Catholicism who says that he converted because he studied the history of the Church and convinced himself that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. A typical convert to Protestantism would instead point to his distrust in what he correctly perceives as a Medieval institution, out of touch with modernity. The contrast is even stronger between Orthodox Church and Protestnatism, as the Orthodox Church is self-defined as the historical Christian Church above all else.
Kolo-Got to agree with Alex on this one, FK!
Well, perhaps you can tell me if the Pope is infallible. After all, it's rooted in "tradition".
[a] Confession/repentance; [b] adoption/election/justification.
The promise of baptism (adoption) applies to adults as it does to children, all of whom (the baptized) will be called by God:
It is almost unbeleveable that the Protestants would claim that the early Church, closest to the Apostles, would practice something the Apostles would disapprove of.
It is a PROCESS by which one may achieve the "dying to oneself" by repeating the Jesus prayer OR by meditation that follows certain procedures (thus, the Hesychastics, perhaps unfairly, were cast as "navel-gazers" by their opponents).
People achieve deification by different outward means.
Regards
You took one phrase from Eph 1:11, spun it to suit your particular supertition, and ignored all the scriptural evidence shown in Jo's 7311, including, of course, that same Ephesians that exhorts our good works in Eph 2:10 and all chapters 4 through 6.
Ephesians 2 explains that our works are possible through Christ's grace working through us; which is, of course, the Catholic teaching. In Ephesians Paul does not teach that works of charity are innecessary; he spends the rest of the Epistle to teach that they are very much necessary.
You Baptists should read the Gospel every once in a while.
I am not sure where this comes from but I think this goes back to some scriptural reference about about bones clattering back into life. This is, with all dure respect, somewhat naïve. The body goes back to dust, from where it was made. If God could make man out of dust, He can certainly make our new bodies out of dust again.
The reasons given for not cremating or scattering are somewhat unconvincing. I am not sure I would rather subject my body to worms crawling through my mouth and eyeballs, than be reduced to ashes.
I will not tire to explain the obvious, no matter how much you prtend not to understand. A chaste young woman betrothed to be married and hearing the prophecy of how great her son will be does not respond "I know not man". She responds something like "I can't wait till Joseph hears this!"
That I don't disagree with. The point remains that the Scripture is given us in its historical and linguistic context, and therefore is nearly incomprehensible without some exegetical tradition. The choice is, whose tradition, that of failed priests Luther and Calvin or that of the fathers of the Church throughout centuries.
I am currently reading Pelikan's "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom", in particular, The Authority of the Fathers. I think Protestants would be quite amazed to find that the Church considered the Consensus of the Fathers AND Ecumenical Councils as inspired by God, just as Scriptures are.
Here is a quote from the book:
"The authority of Scripture, then, was the authority of a Scripture properly interpreted, that is interpreted according to the spiritual sense and in harmony with patristic exegesis... So intimate was the connection between the Scripture and the Fathers that in one sentence, 'the Holy Apostle Paul...and Gregory of Nazianzus, the greate and wondrous teacher" could be invoked together. The difference between the apostles and the church fathers seems to have been one more of degree than of kind...
" "And so the attribute "insprired by God", which the NT used only once and applied to the OT, could be applied also to the Church Fathers. The attributes and epithets that came to be attached to the names of individual fathers are a significant index of their special grace and inspiration. Athanasius was 'this God-bearing teacher' and 'the inerrant winner of contests'; Basil was "the great eye of the Church", meaning "the leading light; Clement of Alexandria was the 'philosopher of philosophers', whose adaptations of Platonic theories had a special force in the Church; Dionysius the Areopagite... was 'the one who truly spoke of God, the great and holy Dionysius'..." etc...
Taken together, these inspired and holy fathers of the church catholic, Eastern and Western, were the norm of traditional doctrine and standard of Christian orthodoxy.Spirit of Eastern Christendom, pg 21-22
The Fathers were authoritative and binding when it reflected the mind of the Catholic and Universal Church.
Regards
I prefer to withhold judgement until I learn more about the differences and distinctions that the Orthodox make in Palamatic formulations. I don't think agreeing to something without knowing the deeper meanings does much to help matters. If you want to know why Roman Catholics don't 'care' much for the Orthodox saint's writings, it is because the vast majority haven't heard of them or read them. And it doesn't help matters when people use the same words to mean different things (like a Catholic vs. Protestant understanding of "salvation").
Regards
And does Catholic teaching, teaches us that the Holy Spirit of God is sealed inside of us until redemption?
I'm skimming through some of Palamas writings tonight. Rather interesting as some of his ideas sound very Protestanish, for an Orthodox. Also, since his writings were in the 1300+ he would be very close to the era of the Reformation. It's interesting, though not surprising, that some of his views were considered heretical until later in life.
Like with any historical evidence, you compare elements of it with what else you know. What, exactly, does strike you as inaccurate in the Protoevangelium and why?
contradiction was in the stated plan that the marriage take place so as to ensure that no one would suspect illicit activity of the part of Joseph
The homilist thinks that the Holy Spirit arranged the events so that Christ is perceived as a legitimate son of Joseph, and we know that he was. At the same time, Annas the scribe did accuse Joseph and Mary of having sexual relations. The resolution is in chapter 16:
And the priest took the water, and gave Joseph to drink and sent him away to the hill-country; and he returned unhurt. And he gave to Mary also to drink, and sent her away to the hill-country; and she returned unhurt. And all the people wondered that sin did not appear in them. And the priest said: If the Lord God has not made manifest your sins, neither do I judge you. And he sent them away. And Joseph took Mary, and went away to his own house, rejoicing and glorifying the God of Israel.
Annas suspected a defilement and tried both by ordeal. In the end he was satisfied that the relationship was somehow proper. He probably assumed that Jesus was Joseph's biological son and that it was good in the eye of God despite her earlier commitment to chastity, which saved the reputaton of the Holy Family, just as the homilist suggests.
Greek has no undefinite article. It has a definite article, absent in this case: "epei andra ou ginosko". Your case would be served if Luke wrote "epei ton andra ou ginosko" -- I do not know the man, which would indicate absence of premarital relation specifically with the betrothed bridegroom. Both indefinite article employed by King James and the absence of the article employed by Douay can connote either virginality at the present or virginality forever. But her future intention to remain virgin is seen not from this phrasing in itself but from her not assuming that the prophesied son will be hers and Joseph's.
This is a fair point that the Orthodox raise also. I think it is illogical because surely I do not venerate Mary because I hope to become a mother of God one day (were I a woman, I still would not have such hopes). We have saints to whom we develop specific attachments because of some connection we make to them in our own journey. So, for example, certain occupations have patron saints. But veneration of Mary is different in that in her we see the human before the Fall, who acts like Eve should have acted, -- rather than someone we'd like to directly imitate.
All honor and glory is Thine, Almighty Father, now and in the ages of ages. We are all reflected light; the free will is in proper placement of our reflective surfaces.
John the Baptist was the last of the Old Testament prophets and his teaching and his baptism prepared the way for Christ and Christian Baptism in the same way in which also Isaiah, for example, prepared it, even though in the case of John the Baptist the prophecy was very immediate. Those who repented of their sin following John's call formed, we assume, the body of the first Christian converts after the Resurrection and the birth of the Church.
Of course is does. Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders are indelible marks of the Holy Spirit. One cannot get unbaptised, for example.
The sealing of the Holy Spirit can be onto condemnation of one who apostacizes (Luther comes to mind). But it has nothing to do with once-saved-always-saved superstition or else Paul would have stopped at Ephesians 1:11 and did not write the exhortations to works of charity in 2-6.
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.