Posted on 01/05/2010 9:46:47 PM PST by the_conscience
I just witnessed a couple of Orthodox posters get kicked off a "Catholic Caucus" thread. I thought, despite their differences, they had a mutual understanding that each sect was considered "Catholic". Are not the Orthodox considered Catholic? Why do the Romanists get to monopolize the term "Catholic"?
I consider myself to be Catholic being a part of the universal church of Christ. Why should one sect be able to use a universal concept to identify themselves in a caucus thread while other Christian denominations need to use specific qualifiers to identify themselves in a caucus thread?
Holy Eucharist IS God Himself.
"4. Throughout the whole Lent the two books of the Old Testament read at Vespers were Genesis and Proverbs. With the beginning of the Holy Week they are replaced by Exodus and Job. Exodus is the story of Israel's liberation from Egyptian slavery, of their Passover. It prepares us for the understanding of Christ's exodus to His Father, of His fulfillment of the whole history of salvation. Job, the sufferer, is the Old Testament icon of Christ. This reading announces the great mystery of Christ's sufferings, obedience and sacrifice.
5. The liturgical structure of these three days is still of the Lenten type. It includes, therefore, the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian with prostrations, the augmented reading of the Psalter, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts and the Lenten Liturgical chant. We are still in the time of repentance for repentance alone makes us partakers of the Pascha of our Lord, opens to us the doors of the Paschal banquet. And, then, on Great and Holy Wednesday, as the last Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is about to be completed, after the Holy Gifts have been removed from the Altar, the Priest reads for the last time the prayer of St. Ephraim. At this moment the preparation comes to an end. The Lord summons us now to His Last Supper."
It is not about satan. It is about Christ. It is about what He would do for us and to what ends He would go to Redeem us.
I doubt Dr E considers me a part of her ‘entourage’...however, so many posts have gone by that I sometimes lose track of the subject.
I believe you are referring to Romans 3:24. The NASB, which I prefer for verse-by-verse study, has it, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;”
This one refers to justification as an ongoing event, based on the NASB...but then, one expects that. For it applies, not to an individual convert, but to “all” who fall short (ongoing) of the glory of God. Again, this is referring to a class of folks - believers who have been, are, and will be for thousands of years to come. Therefor, an ongoing justification makes sense.
But when Paul talks about current converts, including himself, he writes:
“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.”
Notice the transition in tenses...”made us alive...by grace you have been saved, 6 and raised us up...and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus...For by grace you have been saved through faith” - all past tense, at least in the NASB. But then, in verse 10, “we are His workmanship, created...for good works” - present tense.
God did all the previous in the past for current converts - made us alive, saved, raised us up, seated us in the heavenly places, have been saved. And now we ARE his workmanship....after all God DID, we ARE ready for good works.
But I don’t speak Greek, so maybe I’m missing some subtlety.
Your original post said that reunion may not be a priority with BXVI, at least as high as the Orthodox might wish. In reality, the Orthodox are wary, as the last number of attempts at reunion resulted in some rather childish behaviour by certain bishops.
If a person points to desert sand and calls it a rushing river, does their claim make it so?
You're just saying that because it's true.
Is this one of those Netflix commercials? I've got one for you; If two men are walking down the street carrying a canoe, how many pancakes will cover a dog house?
Three Mile Island!
You misread what was posted.
My correspondent wrote that reunion was Pope Benedict's “No. 1 priority.” I wrote that perhaps that's how it appears to the Orthodox [that it is the pope's No. 1 priority], but I'm not sure that it's Pope Benedict's No. 1 priority (although it is certainly a high priority for him).
I made no comment as to how high a priority reunion is to the Orthodox. I really don't have any sense of that at all.
sitetest
“It is not about satan. It is about Christ.”
But the scriptures say specifically Satan appeared before God and was given permission to harm Job and Job says it was God who touched him. Both Ezekiel and James refer to Job as a real person; James going so far as to mention the history was well known.
Do you think Job was real and underwent the trial as set forth in his book?
Born again is one who received baptism. See primarily John 3:1-6, but also Acts 2:38, Romans 6:3-4, Col. 2:12, as well as, of course, Romans 8 that you cite, which speaks of divine adoption.
I read your original post as highly uncomplimentary to the Orthodox. Perhaps I misinterpreted the wording. But I know that some of the Orthodox interpreted it likewise.
I really think it just means small gathering. But it’s a funny word. Too lazy to look it up.
Post 2302 wasn’t my “original post” of the thread, but in any event, you took issue with a couple of sentences and said that they weren’t close to true.
I’m still wondering in what way they weren’t close to the truth?
That reunion isn’t a high priority to Pope Benedict? That it might not be the highest priority (I imagine that Pope Benedict has many high priorities, and unlike my correspondent, I wouldn’t presume to try to name his highest.)?
That another reason for reunion being a high priority is the prayer of Jesus that we call be one?
Which one, exactly, of these statements with which you took issue is the one that isn’t close to the truth?
“But I know that some of the Orthodox interpreted it likewise.”
At least one Orthodox thinks we’re bishop-worshippers. And I haven’t seen any Orthodox take issue with that judgment. When someone does actually take issue with that statement, get back to me on that whole "uncomplimentary" thing.
To my mind, that sort of thing doesn’t exactly enhance the claims of brotherhood, etc.
Might I suggest that it is possible that at least some folks may be unhappy that I've stood four-square behind the idea that Catholics and Orthodox can certainly share caucus threads, but should also have separate caucus threads, and that the proper name for the Catholic Church is the Catholic Church?
sitetest
call be one? = all be one?
But the scriptures say specifically Satan appeared before God and was given permission to harm Job and Job says it was God who touched him. Both Ezekiel and James refer to Job as a real person; James going so far as to mention the history was well known.
Do you think Job was real and underwent the trial as set forth in his book?
The Catholic interpretation says that Job was real, but there are aspects to the story that may go beyond actual events. At any rate:
Job consists of a prose introduction and conclusion - which may have existed separately from the rest, and of a large poetic core. Satan - who seems not to be the same as the devil, merely an opponent - tells God that Job would not obey if he were afflicted. God gives permission to afflict Job greatly. So Job's suffering is permitted as a test - an idea that is a bit new, for usually suffering had been considered as a divine punishment for sin (and it could be that).
Three friends of Job come, but do not really console him: they say he must have sinned or the affliction would not have come. Job insists on his innocence. The fact that God could afflict an innocent man disturbs Job, he almost becomes angry with God at some points. Finally he asks the Almighty to answer him. God does speak from a storm: Would Job condemn God so he, Job could seem just? Job confesses he has not reacted well, he has tried to deal with things above him, he repents in dust and ashes. God directs Job's friends to ask Job to pray for them, so their fault may be pardoned. In the prose conclusion Job gets back much more than what he had lost.
--------------------------- The Council of Trent (DS 1532 and 1582) taught three things: 1)that we receive justification with no merit at all. Justification means the first reception of sanctifying grace,which in turn means that the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in our souls makes us sharers in the divine nature (2.Peter 1.4) and adopted children of God. 2)So we have a *claim* to go to our Father's house.A claim can be called a merit.Yet it is a different kind of merit.Although it is as it were a ticket to heaven, it is a ticket we get for free,without at all earning it. 3) Once we have this status of children,sharing in the very nature of the Father,any good we do has a special added dignity, which makes it suitable that He increase our ability to know Him face to face.Since that vision is infinite, but we are finite receptacles, our capability to receive could grow indefinitely, for it will never reach the infinite. That growth is what we call growth in sanctifying grace. And even though the first grace-the basic ticket itself - is not at all earned, there is a sense in which additions to the ability to see face to face can be earned. Yet we do not earn these as individuals.It is only inasmuch as we are a)members of Christ and b) like Him, that we get in on the claim which HE established.
In this sense we could say what one student once said in a class about salvation: "You can't earn it,but you can blow it". That is, children do not have to earn the love and care of their parents. Yet they could earn to lose it.
______________________________ At the start,Job is fabulously wealthy and blessed in sons and daughters.But then we are taken to the court of God.the sons of God are there,seemingly ,angels.B ut the satan is also there - the Hebrew word is just a general term for the opponent. In Numbers 22.22 (cf.22.32) an angel who blocks the way for Balaam is called angel and also is called the satan,the one who opposes.
In Job the word has not yet taken on the special later meaning of a chief devil.He is merely an opponent. God asks satan if he has noticed Job.Satan replies:Job has no trouble fearing God:God has given him everything.But take something away and see what he will do.God gives permission,and satan takes away everything from Job.Then God says:See what I said! Satan replies:Yes,but let me touch him personally and see.So it is done. Job stricken with loathsome sores from head to foot.He sat in ashes scraping himself with a potsherd. His wife,a foolish woman, urged him to curse God and die.Job of course refused.
____________________________ Chapters 38-41:God speaks to Job out of the storm: It might seem at first sight as though God is rebuking Job,yet at the end in 42.7-=8 God says Job has spoken rightly. The difference is this:Job has not understood the power and Majesty of God sufficiently, though he has known it somewhat.But in spite of all that, Job has not said anything contrary to God's will - the difference is between defect in understanding,and defect in will.
So we have here a long and poetically beautiful presentation of the awesome power of God in creation,going into some detail. Among other things God says He made Behemoth sense is uncertain.It may mean the same as Leviathan, standing for the mythical monster of the sea, which in mythology God can overcome and tame. Or since the word is a feminine plural,it might be an expression of the beast par excellence.
Chapter 4 2: Job answers God.Conclusion: Job properly says He understands better the marvelous power of God,and is sorry he has spoken with insufficient understanding.So he despises himself in dust and ashes.
Finally the Lord spoke to the three counsellors,and rebuked them: they had not spoken right as Job had done.Therefore they must offer a sacrifice of seven bulls and seven rams.But to gain acceptance,they must ask Job to pray for them.God will accept the prayer of Job. It is very significant here that Job is an intercessor,in spite of foolish Protestant claims that there can be no intercessor but Christ--based on 1 Tim 2.5.That verse speaks of a mediator who is a) by very nature, having both divine and human natures; b) is necessary -- only Christ was necessary; c) who can work by his own power-- secondary mediators depend on the power of the One par excellence Mediator. So Job is a mediator.And for that matter, so many times,Moses was a mediator between God and the sinful people.
After all this was done,God restored to Job twice as much as He had taken away. This fact does not deny the essential message of the book which is this: suffering is not always due to sin. In Job his suffering was not due to sin.It was for some other purpose the idea, that it is for instruction, "discipline' is present there,as it is also in Proverbs. But as we said in the introduction to this book of Job, the full purpose of suffering was still to be revealed in Jesus,even though the premises from which they might have reached a point at least close to that conclusion were already present.
We're sorry. All of our angels are busy, and we are unable to process your petition at this time. Your prayer is very important to us. Please stay on your knees and your petition will be considered in the order in which it was received.
I have yet to see a quarterly statement from the Vatican on their vault. ;O)
Nuts! I could have sworn I pressed the 1 key for English and but all I got was some one from India who keeps saying “hello”.
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.