Posted on 04/30/2010 8:03:48 AM PDT by Quix
“I’M NOT A MORMON, DOOFUS!”
Good! That will shorten my prayer list considerably.
Oh? You know that about iscool?
Got links?
The canon was not closed at Nicaea
There is no priesthood provided for in the NT because the priesthood was a type of Christ, it was fulfilled on the cross.. God then destroyed the jewish priesthood in 70 AD to make His point
BTW Presbyters are not priests ... There are two VERY clear words for Priest in the greek if God so desired a priesthood in the New Church
hiereus -) a priest, one who offers sacrifices and in general in busied with sacred rites
archiereus...1) chief priest, high priest
2) the high priests, these comprise in addition to one holding the high priestly office, both those who had previously discharged it and although disposed, continued to have great power in the State, as well as the members of the families from which high priest were created, provided that they had much influence in public affairs.
The word presbyteros has a completely different meaning than priest..
those who presided over the assemblies (or churches) The NT uses the term bishop, elders, and presbyters interchangeably
Nice try though :)
Oh, really? So, does the Catholic Church think Bible reading is a good thing, or not? Obviously, since there are three Bible readings in every mass, every day, it does. Obviously, since indulgences are granted for Bible reading, it is considered good. What you think of indulgences is unimportant except between you and whatever idol you worship.
HaHa...In times past, I wouldn't claim positively that Eve was not seduced by Satan...And I've always claimed that regardless of any faults of the Nestorians, they not only would have considered Catholics to be the heretics but from what's available of their history, they are far closer to Christianity than Catholocism...
Stfassi has a good memory...
If Catholics believe that Scripture is inspired and the Catholic Church is built on it, why do they appeal to the church fathers so much to back up their teachings instead of the Bible they claim the Catholic church is responsible for?
What Scriptural basis is there for indulgences?
What purpose do they serve?
I John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
God forgives us when we confess our sin to Him. End of story.
I am not lying. That may be the case in the parish which you are a member of, but the Catholic church has historically discouraged Bible reading and still does in many places.
I would then wonder why someone would give an account of the Church that was so different from my experience of the past 16 years as a Catholic.
Because they don't live where you do.
The truth, as I have experienced it, is a complicating factor to some charges made against the Catholic Church
As you have experienced it is not how all Catholics have experienced it.
Well, I can see where the Catholic’s reaction to the Nestorians came from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianism
“Nestorius’ teachings brought him into conflict with some other prominent church leaders, most notably Cyril of Alexandria, who criticized especially his rejection of the title Theotokos (’Mother of God”) for the Virgin Mary. Nestorius and his teachings were eventually condemned as heresy at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, leading to the Nestorian Schism in which churches supporting Nestorius broke with the rest of the Christian Church.”
They dared to touch Mary.
And we all know and have seen the reactions of Catholics when someone dares to do that.
FWIW, I never heard of them before.
IF I think that trinket A is a desirable thing, a thing YOU want,...but offered that if given the act of offering indicated an encouragement to Bible reading.
AND IF I tell you,IF you do activity X,THEN I am not discouraging you from doing Activity X.
THEN I will give you trinket A.
Who knows what the actual result was. The question is: what was the expected result, and specifically was the expected result consistent with the charge that the Catholic Church discourages Bible reading?
and the position of the Catholic church toward the Scriptures as quoted, shows what conclusion might be drawn about encouragement of Bible reading.
No. I might think that drinking Wild Turkey is good for longevity. You might think it is good for longevity AND has aphrodisiac properties. The difference in our thinking about HOW it is good, does not mean that we don't both think it's good.
You all think what you think about the Bible. We think what we think. We both think it's good to read the Bible.
The charge was NOT that we don't hold the same opinion of the Bible as do some non-catholics.
The charge was not that our encouraging people to read Scripture was for different reasons or less enthusiastic than the encouragement offered by some non-Catholics.
The charge was that we discourage the reading of the Bible. I was addressing that charge and not some other charge brought up later. One thing at a time.
In short, indulgences have always been an example of moral and spiritual rot and handing out rot for a good purpose does not change the practice into something else.
I disagree. The is such a thing as mens rea If I give you arsenic thinking it's chocolate brownies. I may be guilty of ignorance and carelessness but I am not guilty of murder one. If I give you arsenic thinking it's a deadly poison, then I am a murderer. There is an almost universally acknowledged distinction between criminal carelessness and premeditated murder.
Now IF indulgences are always bad, then they are always bad. Are we clear on that?
But it their use has sometimes been perverted, then it is not clear that they are always bad. Oxycontin has legitimate uses, and illegitimate uses. The illegitimate uses themselves do not show that oxycontin is always bad. For that one would have to look elsewhere.
IF you are trying to argue the proposition that indulgences are bad, I have not seen the argument. If you're just saying they're bad, well, fine. I disagree.
As you have experienced it is not how all Catholics have experienced it.
And similarly, those who make blanket statements about the Catholic Church discouraging reading the Bible are generalizing from the specific to the general in contradiction to the facts.
In some places at some times some Catholic prelates and others have discouraged some lay people from reading some versions/translations of the Bible. I think we can agree on that.
But that is not how you started. Think of how much time a little precision would have saved.
The OT is revealed in the NT-there is NOW UNIVERSAL Salvation -The OT is revealed in Christ and useless otherwise
I don’t do “potshots”.
Odd that the Roman Catholic et al edifice would, yet again, disagree with Scripture about such a thing:
7.Revelation 19:20
But the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who had performed the miraculous signs on his behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped his image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. Revelation 19:19-21 (in Context) Revelation 19 (Whole Chapter)
The question is about the union of the human and divine natures in Christ. If there is indeed a union, without confusion or change, of two natures in one person, Jesus, AND IF that union was true of Jesus from the moment of his conception, then Mary bore God, because the divine nature only exists in 'beings' that are God.
If, however the union is not as described above, then Mary could be thought of as giving birth to the human Jesus who later was united with God in some way not fully described. In THAT case, an argument could be made for NOT saying Mary bore God.
The title Theotokos/Deigenetrix (bearer of God) is a title of Mary, but it is ABOUT Jesus. And the discord was about HOW Jesus could rightly be thought of as having a human and a divine nature.
(What exactly IS a potshot? I’m going to have to look it up now.)
Good. Then we can discuss the rot of indulgences another time, when we’ve stomped the current question into the ground.
Indulgences were a good source of income for centuries for the Catholic church. A priest living with concubines or perhaps even in marriage could purchase an indulgence and wave it in front of any magistrate that sought to punish him.
Despite the harm done by the licentiousness of the priests and numerous condemnations of Councils the money was just too good to give up the practice.
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.