Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
And who prays for perserverance?
"Additionally, if you look at the actual Matthew 6:11, it differs from the traditional wording of the prayer as the bread is described as "supersubstantial", -- "epiousion", another (with "kecharitomene") unique word formation that refers to the transsubstantiated bread of the Eucharist rather than the gastronomical bread."
Interestingly, St. John Chrysostom -- whose Greek is better than mine -- interprets this unique word (found only in the Gospels) as meaning "that for one day." His subsequent commentary stresses that the body needs "necessary food," and that we are being taught not to "take thought for the morrow." He says that we should not "wear ourselves out with the care of the following day."
St. Theophylact says also that Christ means "what is sufficient for our existence, our essence, and our sustenance. Thus He teaches us not to worry about tomorrow." In his commentary on St. Luke, he says only that Christ is teaching us to ask only for "that bread which is required for our being and for the sustenance of our life, and not to ask for more than we need.
St. Theophylact does add in his commentary on the St. Matthew passage, as a *secondary* meaning, that 'bread for our essence' "is also the Body of Christ, of Which we pray that we may partake without condemnation."
Reflected here are two different speculated etymologies for this unique word of "epiousios." It would seem to me that this is probably an intentionally double meaning, with a primary meaning of "needful" or "daily" applying to our daily physical needs and existence, and a deeper spiritual meaning speaking of the Body of Christ.
Origen apparently felt that the word had been specifically coined by Christ or the Apostles, since it appears nowhere else -- and again, his Greek was better than mine.
That's right-nothing!
Why do't you try to stay on the subject and remember that I was repsonding to your "No, to return to the freedom that God has given us." Hence my reply was that we are not free to sin boldly, as Luther suggested.
And again, what Luther suggested is irrelevant to the debate on the scriptural debate on Justification by Faith.
The historical fact is that Luther's translation had James in it as part of the Canon (unlike the Apocrypha books which he knew were not part of the Canon) The historical fact is that Luther wanted to exlcude it.
But the historical fact is that he didn't.
And the fact is that Luther's views on anything are irrelevant to what the scripture teach on the subject.
Luther's views would only be relevant if I were using him as a 'church father' and citing him as a final authority, which I have not done.
That's interesting. I realize that the early Western way was in compliance with the Scriptures, esp. the Hebrew view, but I think that the Greek view has more value and is more likely in line with the New Testament understanding of "redemption". From my studies of Catholicism after Vatican 2, I notice we are moving away from that view as the primary explanation, which was solidified by St. Anselm's theory of atonement. I have received a book in the mail just a week ago that shows the Scripture verses that shows "your" point of view on the atonement. So we (West) are moving in this direction on redemption, although I don't think we will rid ourselves completely of the older view. Perhaps it will (should) become secondary.
Thanks for your insights,
Joe
I am ignorant about all of that. All I can say is that there are Eastern Catholic communities that still practice their own rituals and Liturgy while maintaining union with the Pope. They have a certain independence regarding rituals. I don't know about the situation in the Ukraine, so I can't hope to respond intelligently.
Regards
I'd have to do more reading on that. "inheriting Adam's sin" can mean many things, Kolo. By the fact that we have been effected by that incestral sin, I would say we have inherited the effects of that sin.
Regards
Can you refer me to where Catholics are no longer using "uniatism" as a bridge? Perhaps we just don't use that term? I am not aware of this, but I am not sure.
Regards
He got his way with the Apocrypha books because he knew they were not Canonical.
The fact is that the other books are part of Luther's translation-period.
As for the marignal note, it is the correct one since works have nothing to do with salvation, they show it (James). Marginal note? That was no gloss. That was an outright change in meaning of the Scriptures. We aren't saved by faith alone, other Scriptures explicitly say it!
No, actually, we are only saved by faith and not by works.
Those other scripures that explicity say it are not speaking of being saved, but showing one is saved and dealing with rewards etc.
That is the Gospel that was taught since the beginning of Christiantiy Hardly. What seems strange is that there is no indication of a "faith alone" theology among the Church Fathers the first 1000 years. Don't you find that curious? Maybe Protestants aren't infallible?
Protestants aren't infalliable, but the Bible is and that is what it teaches.
The 'father's dealt mostly with theological controversies and justification by faith was not developed by them.
However, Schaff states that Clement appears to have discussed it in the Pauline sense.
Now, now, even Jerome did not consider those Apocrypha books as 'scripture' You have stated the EXCEPTION! Such matters are open to debate, but once the Church rules on such things, the case is closed. St. Jerome truly followed Christ by accepting those whom had been given authority to bind and loosen. Unlike Luther, St. Jerome submitted to God's instrument on earth. That is the difference between a saint and a Luther. Submitting one's will to God's will.
No, Jerome was not the exception, many others followed him.
The 'church' did not make those books canonical until Trent, in reaction to the Protestent rejection of them.
They are never quoted in the New Testament as Scripture by Christ or any apostle Christ never quotes from MANY books in the Old Testament, such as Nehemiah or Chronicles. So should the "inspired Protestant" remove them because the "spirit" is guiding him? One wonders what "spirit" guided Luther to desire to remove books from Sacred Scriptures.
Actually, all the books of the OT are covered by his quote in Matt.23:35 when he stated that generation would be guilty of all the blood shed from Abel to that of Zacharias'.
That encompasses the books of Genesis thru 2Chron.
In the Jewish OT, the last book in their Bible is 2Chron.
That excludes the Apocrypha books which were never part of any Jewish Bible.
In fact, Paul quotes a pagan Greek author but he never quotes from the Apocrypha. Sure he does. Who are the magicians that Moses fought against in the Pharoah's court? Where does the OT mention them? Yet, Paul knows their names - from the Apocrypha. And much of Paul's thought is from the book of Wisdom. James takes much from Sirach. And Jesus Himself celebrates a feast named only in the Maccabees corpus...
Paul knows their names because God revealed it to him.
The same God revealed how He created the world to Moses, or do you think that Moses learned that somewhere else?
Paul's thought is from God, James thought is from God and Jesus never mentioned anything from any Greek Apocrypha book.
That is a vote that will cost you dearly in eternity, since you are placing your confidence in a man-made Church and not the words of God. LOL!!! I have long ago fulfilled the Protestant requirement for salvation. I believe in Christ as my Savior and Lord... According to your standards, I got my bus ticket - as others have called this sort of salvation.
Well, if you did then you are going to be surprised that you have wasted your life in not following him.
"...that was the light that sparked the great revival.(Ps.119:130) LOL! Psalm 119 is refering to Luther? That's about the dumbest thing I have ever heard... You are quite brainwashed on Luther's contribution.
I cited a verse that stated that God's words spark revival, which Luther gave to the German people with his translation of the Erasmus Greek text.
No the Lord Jesus Christ is [the pillar and foundation of truth], (not some Pope) as Peter acknowledges (1Pe.2:6-8) as does Paul (1Cor.3:11) The Church is the Body of Christ. I am not making a false dichotomy of Church vs. Christ. The Scripture NEVER makes such a claim. Just Protestants. Which shows how much they know the Scriptures.
Well, they know the scriptures enough to know that Rome is the great harlot of Rom.17.
Interesting in the latest edition of 'Battlecry', the question is raised 'Are some Catholics Saved' and the author (a former monk and priest) comes to the conclusion,
Those who insist that there are saved Roman Catholics either do not know the Bible or do not know Roman Catholicism
But if you are saved, you will be in heaven because of the faith that you expressed and not because of any works you are now doing to be saved.
My understanding is that most, if not all, of the grave sites of all the Apostles have never been positively identified. We also do not know for sure where the tomb of Jesus is, or where He was born. Where is His cross, and where is the Grail, etc.? For some reason God did not want us today to know these things. I don't know why.
Medically, the saints are dead. But so what? They are more useful to us in that form, just as Christ said He was more "useful" when He told the Apostles that they would be better off after His death because then He would send the Advocate - and He Himself would be our Advocate to the Father. And the saints are also advocates for us.
Where does the Bible tell us that saints are advocates for us? Jesus is our advocate, He and the Spirit. No one else. The word "mediator" really seems to have its own unique definition in Catholicism. It doesn't really seem to match the normal use in English. Since the saints appear to have the same function as Christ (mediation, advocacy, prayer, direct help during our lives, etc.) do you think of Christ as really more of a "first among saints"?
Why wouldn't God joyfully allow His saints to be part of helping people come to Him?
Why would He? He wouldn't because it takes focus away from Him, and puts it on dead people. This idea leads lay people to think that God needs help. This is another example of Catholicism transferring dependence of man away from God and putting it onto men.
The message of the Bible is that physical death means separation between the departed and the bereaved. That is why we are told it's good to grieve. Why grieve at all if we are still in contact with them? The Bible says that we are not to contact the dead. You might say that is only for evil spirits. However, as you are so fond of saying, you can't possibly know who is saved and who is lost. A vote by the Church hierarchy doesn't make someone saved, unless you are willing to admit that. I have even been told on this thread that it is permissible to pray to dead relatives, which is even worse.
Christ in His humanity wasn't blind. We don't see Him going through the trials a blind man would undergo. In His divinity, Christ knows all. But that part of Christ is incomprehensible to us. Christ is the perfect image of God and it is transmitted to us through His humanity.
Since when do you pray to the human nature of Christ? Do you not always pray to the divine? I still cannot understand why our Lord Jesus Christ is not sufficient. He is more than I will ever need. I believe all of my focus should be on Him and only Him.
Next time you say "that lasagna was delicious", have the cook kick you in the pants because the lasagna stole the glory of the cook...
Faulty analogy. Lasagna is an inanimate object and is not capable of doing anything. The compliment is necessarily directed at the cook, and every cook understands that. This case is different as history is packed with examples of worship being directed at false Gods. Our God thought the point was so important that He devoted a whole Commandment to it. Sharing God's glory with both dead and live people leads the laity away from God for their needs. As we become more dependent on dead people especially, our relationship with God suffers. But you would have me believe that this is what God wants. I disagree.
Well, I had enjoyed your post on the sheep and the goats until this...
Apparently, Christians had to wait for St. Paul to give the "real" Gospel...
Even from Paul alone, I can show that Paul does not teach "faith alone". Throw in Peter, John, James, and Jesus, the argument is over before it begins...
You want a clue? Look to Romans 4:4, one verse removed from one you cited. That will explain what "works" mean to Paul. It is something done for pay. Nothing we do earns anything. Salvation is not earned. But Paul STILL commands we obey Christ. You misunderstand "doing something out of love" with "doing something for pay".
Regards Regards
"Do not grieve the Holy Spirit" Why not? We can't loose our salvation anyways...
The race being run has to do with rewards not salvation. (1Cor.9:24-26)
LOL!!! Read the next verse. As usual, you have to cut and paste Scriptures to get it to say your heretical views of the Word of God.
"I keep my body under, and bring [it] into subjection, lest preaching to others, I myself should become reprobate" 1 Cor 9:27
Other translations say "become disqualified". In either case, "there's no soup for you!" You don't get a prize for being disqualified or reprobate!
The final glorification has to do with our receiving our resurrection Body, not salvation (Rom.8).
Too many verses to prove this wrong.
"For if ye live according to the flesh, ye shall die [yes, you too, Christians who have been 'saved']; but if through the Spirit ye mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live" Romans 8:13
we are sons of God, and if sons, also heirs certainly of God and joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with [him] that we may be also glorified together [with him]." Romans 8:17
"with the hope that the same creatures shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God" Romans 8:21 HOPE!
"For in hope we are saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for what a man sees, he does not wait for Romans 8:24 Wow. FAITH ALONE DOESN'T SAVE! We are also saved by hope!
Well, that's enough for now, I don't have time to go through every verse in Romans 8, but you should be able to see that eternal salvation is not a done-deal. Our salvation from sin has only begun.
Regards
Read this:
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/balamand_txt.aspx
It is not, by the way, a popular document outside the Middle East from an Orthodox pov.
have not been born again
"Born again" is "baptized". Read the entire discourse with Nicodemus in John 3.
Regarding Matthew 25:14-30, David Cloud writes
What he writes is incomprehensible nonsense not related to Matthew 25.
you have never read the Pauline Epistles
The Pauline epistles teach the very same thing: salvation is by grace through faith sustained by good works. No part of the New Testament cotradicts another. If you believe that St. Paul contradicts St. Matthew, or St. James, then you do not understand St. Paul. For example, Ephesians 2 indeed explains that salvation comes by grace through faith, but it also calls us to "walk good works" while avoiding pridefulness. This is a perfectly Catholic thing that St. Paul is saying there. It would also be useful for you to read therest of the letter, and find, for example, that we are to "walk worthy of the vocation in which you are called", "kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another", "walk in love", -- just like the Church teaches.
You continue to say
None of those exhortations to charity have anything to do with ones salvation, and that is the point that Paul is making by saying that works have nothing to do with salvation, they have to do with showing ones salvation
This is not contained in the epistles. Work for reward and work mandated by law is explained to be not salvific; but work of charity is exhorted as salvific. If St. Paul meant to sweep up all the works as unrelated to justification he would not habitually segue into such exhortations in every letter right after he speaks of lack of salvific merit in works of reward and law. For example, St. Paul calls for virtuous life in Ephesians 5:1-4, then concludes "understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person (which is a serving of idols), hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Seems that works of purity and marital duty are exactly that, salvific.
they are goats because they did not believe and they show that they unbelievers by their lack of good works.
What prevented Christ from saying so, if that is the case? What about the preceding parable in Matthew 25, where it is shown that it is what you do with your talent of faith, not the possession of it, that counts for salvation.
- "Thy will be done", you acknowledge, is a meaningless petition.
- "Forgive us our sins", you say, is so that we get rewards. What rewards? What if our sins are not forgiven, -- do we still end up in heaven? Hello?
- "Do not lead us into temptation", you again say that it does not happen, so it is a meaningless petition.
- "Deliver us from evil" -- according to you we should not pray it because the "evil" here is annoyances of life that are really good for us. But that would have been covered under "temptations" would it not?
While the Doury-Rheims translates it "supersubstantial" there is nothing in the Greek that would indicate this is anything other than daily sustenance. I think Jerome got a bit excited.
"epiousion" is exactly "supersubstantial". "Sufficient" is a possible meaning (emeran, daily, is a separate word in both gospels), but "supersubstantial" is the precise meaning. If the evangelists wanted to stick to the simple "daily", they would not have added this rather extravagant epithet.
I agree, of course, that "sufficient" is a possible translation next to "emeran", "daily", but with St. Theophylact, I believe that th eucharistic meaning cannot be ignored. Where does St. Chrysostom teach about that, in the Homilies on Matthew? I'll re-read that tomorrow.
The Balamand Agreement is one that is highly controversial within the Orthodox world for a number of reasons, and the strong grass-roots opposition to it has caused most jurisdictions to back off from considering it to be of any kind of binding effect.
But from the Catholic side, the Agreement has never been controversial that I can tell. What the Agreement basically says is that the right to exist of the alreday extant Eastern Catholic churches is acknowledged by the Orthodox side, and that the Catholic side renounces any further use of the principles of Uniatism as a means to unity.
Of course, the Catholic interpretation of the Agreement is that they won't try to co-opt entire dioceses and national churches one at a time, nor will they blatantly run campaigns to convert Orthodox to Eastern Catholicism. But in practice, by pouring money into their Eastern Catholic churches, they can continue to attract "spontaneous converts" on an individual basis (which the Agreement does of course allow, as a matter of acknowledging religious freedom.)
It is clear that there will be no full-scale conversions of dioceses or national churches anyway (the Eastern Catholic churches that exist in Eastern Europe all came into being in geographical areas that had come under the control of Catholic political entities,) so this was never the Orthodox concern. The Orthodox concern was the use of the Eastern Catholic churches as "missionary" bridgeheads for attracting Orthodox away from the Orthodox Church through a sort of "bait and switch," since by definition, the idea of Uniatism was that the Eastern Catholic churches would look exactly like their Orthodox counterparts.
The Orthodox point to the language in the Agreement that specifically addresses the use of financial incentives to convert -- obviously this is a very hazy area, and one that is impossible to define with precision or to enforce.
The Patriarchate of Russia (and other Eastern Slavic Orthodox Churches) feels that the Balamand agreement has already been violated by Catholic missionary activity amongst the Orthodox in Eastern Europe.
All of this is a long way of explaining why I said "at least officially," when I said that Catholicism had given up Uniatism as a means of unity. This is still a very, very sensitive area for the Orthodox, and it never ceases to amaze me that even knowledgable Catholics speak about the Eastern Catholic churches as entities that could possibly aid in achieving unity, when their effect has been exactly the opposite...
We have never established our own Patriarch of Rome, and when Catholic areas came under political control of Orthodox rulers, there were never any attempts to set up Latin-rite parishes and parallel ecclesiastical structures that looked exactly like the Roman Catholic churches -- but with the primate commemorating the Patriarch of Moscow or whatever.
"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied." Acts 19:1-6<
The immediate section before, Luke again distinguishes between the baptism of John and the Baptism of the Spirit with regards to Apollos. From above, it should be clear that the Spirit does NOT come upon men "merely" at the point of belief.
Actually, the section you cite says that Paul came across certain disciples ... who knew nothing of the Holy Spirit.
How could one be a disciple of Jesus ... andd be ignorant of the the person of the Holy Spirit.
My conclusion was that these were disciples ... of John (the Baptist) and, as such, ... had only received his baptism (for repentence).
The fact that these hadn't, as yet, been baptized with with Jesus' baptism ... also supports this conclusion.
John may have pointed these to Jesus ... but they had yet to meet Him, either physically or spiritually.
I also note that the Holy Spirit came upon them when Paul laid hands on them ... not as of their christian baptism.
By the way, nice to hear from you again.
It is good to converse with you, as well.
I just found out that Randall passed away earlier this week. It is so difficult to understand. They actually found a marrow donor for Randall several weeks ago, ... but the doctors said that Randall, by then, was too weak to survive the transplant operation.
We had been praying for him to be strengthened so that he might receive the transplant. But it appears that it was not meant to be.
Thank-you, and all those who participated with you, ... for your prayers and kind intentions.
Please pray for the family ... that God might comfort them.
Thanks again,
Chuck
"Where does St. Chrysostom teach about that, in the Homilies on Matthew?"
Yes, and it is interesting that he gives such an explicitly simple explication about "daily bread" with nary a mention of the Eucharist. Even St. Theophylact, as I pointed out, only mentions it in passing and as an afterthought, and in the commentary on Luke, doesn't mention it at all.
Liddel and Scott traces the etymology in a way that doesn't link this word to "ousia" at all, and also cites Origen's reference to it as being a word that was rare, at best.
I should add that while the official reasons given by hierarchies for rejecting or at least backing away from the Balamand Agreement are related to the technicalities of whether or not Catholicism has held up its end of the bargain, the overwhelming grass-roots opposition to the Agreement is almost completely based on its theological and ecclesiological implications.
I watch EWTN and I notice a lot of "shift" in the patristic direction. The other night I was watching this program on EWTN where they were talking about praying the liturgy of the Hours and exhalting Desert Fathers! To hear this from the Catholic clergy and lay people just floored me – in a nice way! Usually, the Catholics don't go that far back, let alone speak about Desert Fathers (the hermits) as role models.
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.