Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
.- Thousands of pilgrims and faithful gathered at noon Sunday in St. Peter’s Square to pray the Angelus with the Holy Father. Before the prayer, he said that the fruits of the recently ended Year for Priests could never be measured, but are already visible and will continue to be ever more so.
“The priest is a gift from the heart of Christ, a gift for the Church and for the world. From the heart of the Son of God, overflowing with love, all the goods of the Church spring forth,” proclaimed Pope Benedict XVI. “One of those goods is the vocations of those men who, conquered by the Lord Jesus, leave everything behind to dedicate themselves completely to the Christian community, following the example of the Good Shepherd.”
The Holy Father described the priest as having been formed by “the same charity of Christ, that love which compelled him to give his life for his friends and to forgive his enemies.”
“Therefore,” he continued, “priests are the primary builders of the civilization of love.”
Benedict XVI exhorted priests to always seek the intercession of St. John Marie Vianney, whose prayer, the “Act of Love,” was prayed frequently during the Year for Priests, and “continues to fuel our dialogue with God.”
The pontiff also spoke about the close of the Year for Priests, which took place this past week and culminated with the Solemnity of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. He emphasized “the unforgettable days in the presence of more than 15,000 priests from around the world.”
The feast of the Sacred Heart is traditionally a “day of priestly holiness,” but this time it was especially so, Benedict XVI remarked.
Pope Benedict concluded his comments by noting that, in contemplating history, “one observes so many pages of authentic social and spiritual renewal which have been written by the decisive contribution of Catholic priests.” These were inspired “only by their passion for the Gospel and for mankind, for his true civil and religious freedom.”
“So many initiatives that promote the entire human being have begun with the intuition of a priestly heart,” he exclaimed.
The Pope then prayed the Angelus, greeted those present in various languages, and imparted his apostolic blessing.
IT IS WRITTEN IS EXTREMELY EMHPASIZED AND EMPHATIC IN SCRIPTURE.
Sola Scriptura is merely a label for the Scriptural assertions as The Trinity is a label for the Scriptural description of the Godhead.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LOL... That "list" was a collaborative effort among a number of Catholic authors including David Palm and Steve Ray. There are a lot more than 28 or 38, but since you can't answer even one the total is redundant.
Every time those questions are raised either singularly or collectively the Protestant Community goes into full damage control attack mode. I have never seen any, particularly the virulent anti-Catholics attempt to honestly answer any of them, but I never expected honest answers from dishonest people.
Look who found a box of old HTML code in the dumpster.......
When quoting ANY webpage, be sure to include the link or url.
Although the subject matter has been since found on webpages I did not get my content from a webpage. Much of it predates the internet.
If the source is not the internet, then reference the book or journal, author, etc.
Curious why the obsession with Solas. Among those whose faith is guided by the Word of God (as opposed to those whose faith lies primarily in the authority of a group & traditions) the terms Sola ... are not some kind of bedrock doctrinal terms in and of themselves. They simply describe perspectives that the Scripture promotes. Shorthand, if you will.
For example, Eph. 2:8ff is one of the many places that Paul sets out the fact that once the Gentiles became includable in Israel’s Messiah, the means by which that inclusion occured is “grace through faith, and that not of yourselves”. If Paul went on to say, grace would be conferred by other men, or by an organization, or by the Eucharist, or even by personal commitments we would be inclined to listen to you. But, the text delivered by the Apostle pre dating anything Roman Catholic simply says, “it is the gift of God; not as result of works, that no one should boast.” Oila’, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide explained.
Because this view is assailed by those claiming it is inadequate and more must be added, we simply reply, “Well, the text was there first, so we will stick with Sola Scriptura to guide us. Crackpots of every stripe will attempt to alter what is true and the Scripture provides a immovable foundation.”
Solas describe these facts. No one that I know claims that they appear in the text any more than the word “Trinity” appears in a text, yet we hold that precious truth to be a summary of the text’s collective argument. So, if your questions are intended to ask, “Does the Bible’s aggregate message teach the Solas?” We would say “yes, of course.” If you want to know where, read the entire text and you will find them.
What a transparent side-stepping, avoidance of my point . . .
while railing at someone for supposedly avoiding your questions.
Fascinating.
Typical of the rabid-clique/White Hanky Brigade, however.
As I pointed out earlier, there is no 'priestly service' in Romans 15:16...
Rom 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
What we have is 'ministering'...
λειτουργός
hierourgeō
hee-er-oorg-eh'-o
From a compound of G2411 and the base of G2041; to be a temple worker, that is, officiate as a priest (figuratively): - minister.
That is, officiate as a priest, FIGURATIVELY...
And to be more specific,
Rom 15:25 But now I go unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.
λειτουργέω
leitourgeō
li-toorg-eh'-o
From G3011; to be a public servant, that is, (by analogy) to perform religious or charitable functions (worship, obey, relieve): - minister.
Rom 15:8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
διάκονος
diakonos
dee-ak'-on-os
Probably from διάκω diakō (obsolete, to run on errands; compare G1377); an attendant, that is, (generally) a waiter (at table or in other menial duties); specifically a Christian teacher and pastor (technically a deacon or deaconess): - deacon, minister, servant.
When we get down to the brass tacks, your priestly service, which is to be a minister and to minister is a far, far cry from being a priest...
As we know, priests provide sacrifices...In the case of the 'church' God provided the REAL sacrifice, His Son...ONCE, FOR ALL and for all time...
In the mean time, we have MINISTERS, servants...
No priests...
We didn't have to go thru this little exercise to understand what the scripture says...But sometimes we have to use the Greek to show you guys not only that you are wrong, but to prove Sola Scripture by posting the 'Greek'...
You say 'priest', one who sacrifices for the people...Scripture says 'minister', one who serves the people...
Your tradition is in disagreement with the scripture, again...We have to go with scripture alone, again...
INDEED TO THE MAX.
THX.
And that makes it so simple because the scripture contends that it is NOT at all the same in the the New Covenant...By what authority do you oppose the scriptures???
The veil was ripped in two...Access to the Holy of Holies is not only available to all Christians but it is encouraged amongst Christians (by God) WITHOUT the benefit of a priest...
We are not at odds over the etymology of the term priest and agree that it is derived from the Greek presbuteros, not hiereus
Who agrees??? Presbuteros is Elder...Hiereus is Priest...
The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for “elder.”
That proves absolutely nothing, even if it is true...
Great point, Dutchboy88. I don’t understand the obsession with Solas, either. You know, if any mention of Paul and Paul’s Epistles were taken from the New Testament, the argument would stop. we would have the Gospels, fulfilling prophecies of the Old Testament, we would have Acts, where Peter speaks on the Day of Pentecost, calling for the restoration of Israel, and the accepting of Jesus Christ as their Messiah, we would have Israel rejecting that once again, we would have Israel becoming Lo Ammi (not my people) and the blinding of the Jews, and then we would have Hebrews, calling out to the 12 tribes scattered abroad for restoration and once again, confirming Christ as Messiah, through Revelation, and Christ returning to reign over his Kingdom Throne, with Peter and the 11 judging the 12 tribes of Israel. It’s unbroken and very easy to understand. Without Paul’s Epistles. Did you ever notice that on the day of Pentecost, Peter does NOT speak of Christ dying for our sins? That was not known until that revelvation and Gospel was given to Paul. It’s simply because Paul’s distinct mission is either ignored or watered down in order to “fit” someplace” that it doesn’t belong, that problems begin. And men decided to meet to try to tell us what they think Paul meant. And traditions begin. Along with creeds, dogma, “visions”, and “miracles”. It’s a sad shame that The Dispensation of the Grace of God is not understood for what it plainly states that it is.
Good points.
They’d be more read with white space between . . . paragraphs are our friends.
He claims this even after Jesus warned them (and us) about these guys...
Mar 13:21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
Mar 13:22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
iknowijustranwiththethought!...
The Reformation and the various “solas” derived from it was a struggle for simplification of faith with regard to Christ. Jesus was the example who broke through the complications of the Pharisaical religious and moral systems and restored the light of the simple gospel. Jesus’ contemporaries considered this simplification as an assault on the mystery of the legalistic relation between God and man, and on the Tora. They considered the plucking ears of corn and the cure of a patient on the Sabbath to be a threat to the gift of the Father. They saw their whole man-made tradition system imperiled, and criticized Jesus’ doctrine and practice as an imperfect radical alteration of their religion. Rarely has the immense risk inherent in the handling of the scheme of simplification been made more manifest in history than in the struggle of Israel’s leaders against the Lord, for in this case, the simplification, was the renewal of the possibility of the gospel of God’s grace to be heard. In the complexity of the many commandments and ordinances, Christ called men to come to him: “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
The sola Scriptura principle follows this radical simplification. This simplification is not achieved by simply cutting out certain essential elements from the gospel, but by starting from a central religious conception of the entire gospel. It was not a question of misinterpreting the way of revelation but it was the rejection of all that had assumed authority in the church by means of an unbridled tradition, which was contradictory to the gospel. The simplification brought about by the Reformation included the rejection of the mystic elements, the devotion to Mary, and the exaltation of offices, as a direct consequence of the unique and all-important position assigned to Christ and his work. The significance of Jesus’ sufferings and death on earth was valued so highly that every element of reduplication or repetition in later history was absolutely excluded. On account of this conception the Reformation opposed with all its religious fervor the (bloodless) “repetition of Christ’s self-sacrifice on Calvary’s cross.”
The Reformed confession of the absolute grace of God was not an attack on God’s immanence or on the presence and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the church. Nor was it a question of overestimating God’s transcendence and undervaluing his immanence. But it was a confession whose radical character was decisive in opposition to the meritoriousness of good works. The Reformation did not want to cut out elements from the gospel but to maintain the full gospel of grace. To formulate the difference sharply: the confession of God’s grace was not meant to fix the mind on some partial aspect of truth. The Reformation did not want to eliminate man, faith, sanctification and good works. But the Reformation opposed the view that “eternal bliss truly and certainly depends on ourselves.”
The listening to the Word, as the sword of the Holy Spirit did not mean any limitation of God’s freedom; Quite the opposite. The Reformation really called back to the simplicity of the gospel: from Mary to Christ; from the many intercessors, to the sole advocate; from the mass, to the immeasurable value of Christ’s earthly self- sacrifice; from the meritoriousness of good works, to the justification of the ungodly. In this call the simplicity of the gospel was promulgated again, and the complexity of the medieval system of penitence was broken through. This was an entirely different approach to the gospel as a whole, revealing the power of the Word, freed from its obstacles. The sola fide, sola Scriptura, solus Christus were not the result of confused thinking, but the rediscovery of the simple faith that conquers the world as against the Roman complication of the gospel. In the Reformation, the issue was not concerned with the contrast between an isolated truth and the mystery of the whole truth, but with the preaching of the whole Christ.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
The Vatican bureaucratic magicsterical arrogant power-mongers from their club's beginnings around 300-400AD decided
THEY
WERE BETTER THAN,
OUT-RANKED
THE KING OF KINGS, LORD OF LORDS, CREATOR OF ALL THAT IS!
THEY
Could use as THEIR points of pseudo authority
or to their dusty boned predecessors!
as points of pseudo authority!
ARROGANCE TO THE MAX.
What cheek!
And they think God doesn't notice such arrogance?
CHRIST HIMSELF DID NOT APPEAL TO HIS OWN AUTHORITY but said repeatedly:
"IT IS WRITTEN!" "IT IS WRITTEN!" "IT IS WRITTEN!"
And still the vain-glorious haughty institution and near all the prancing officials thereof
IGNORE CHRIST'S STANDARD OF
IT IS WRITTEN!
AND slip and slide, wail and whine, rationalize, elasticize, mangle and trash Scripture in favor of
!!!!!!!!!!TRADITIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doctrines of men and of demons,
political gerrymandering in theological white hankies,
Where's the barf bag!
I realize the above solid points will not be dealt with rationally if faced at all.
It's !!!!TRADITION!!!! to avoid what can't be rationally, realistically, Biblically countered.
As a stream-of-consciousness writer . . . I’m familiar with the tendency.
Have learned to force myself into almost an exaggerated Journalistic style of paragraphing. My aging eyes really need the white space.
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.