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.
Copying and pasting non proofs and claiming that they are proofs is more noble? Come now, let us stop fencing. Produce the Pauline Nicene proofs and we will be the best of friends.
Mark: Show me where Paul quotes God except for the three verses in Acts 9. Show me where Paul quotes God in support of any of his writings.
C-Y-C: First of all I don't respond well to commands like “Show me....Show me...”, But I'll overlook it since it takes so little effort. You can go to Hebrews where Paul is positively effusive with quotes from God in support of his writings, Chapter 3, 4, and 8 make a good start.
Or maybe 2 Cor. chapter 12 where God tell Paul that Paul is going to have to deal with his infirmity. He makes a direct quote in vs. 9.
C-Y-C: Let's indeed go to heart of the matter. Paul doesn't support the teachings of the Catholic church so he's “incomplete” or lacking “quotes” or some other fabricated deficiency. Isn't THAT the “heart of the matter”?
And now you want someone to find in Paul's writings a creed he doesn't discuss (it was devised long after his death) in a predictable and predicted fashion
C-Y-C: Next it will be: “Except for THOSE verses show me where.....”
If you want to start a thread on the Catholic doctrine of the trinity, it's Biblical basis or lack thereof, do so and I'll be right there. But like I said, I don't respond well to being told what to do just to satisfy you.
The heart of the matter is Paul doesn't support the teachings of the Catholic church therefore he is suspect.
Start a thread if you want but don't think I'm going to jump through hoops you erect.
Gladly.
The Scripture does not say anything about Mary's relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Matthew 1:19-24 simply says that prior to Jesus's birth thay had no carnal relations. It does not project anything following that.
Every time where the "brothers" of Jesus are mentioned by name, we also know the name of the mother, and she is not Mary the Mother of God, but rather Mary Clopas. On the other hand, "brother" or "sister" in Middle Eastern countries can refer to any family member close in age, -- half-brother, cousin, etc. Note how Abram calls Lot his "brother" when we know from the same scripture that Lot was actually his nephew.
We don't know either way as regards Mary's marital life from the scripture.
Why is it so important to Catholics to think that Mary was always a virgin?
It is not terribly important. No Catholic dogma necessary for your salvation would fall if Mary is discovered to have had marital relations with Joseph. It certainly wouldn't have been a sin for them to do so. But the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary is logical, because we would find it strange that a woman who gave miraculous birth to God would still be interested in leaving a natural offspring. For Joseph, that would be an act of desecration, if you take into account that the Jews held any vessel touched by God -- even inanimate one like the Tabernacle of the Word, -- as something not to be touched on penalty of death. Mary's womb was holy to him as it is to all Christians.
Further, while, like I said, there is not direct scripture, Mary's perpetual virginity is consistent with Luke 1:34, where Mary says "I know not man". That is because if she intended to have carnal relations with Joseph after she should marry, she would not have been surprised by the prophecy of having a child.
The tradition holds it that Mary was a temple virgin married off to Joseph for economic reasons, while the intention was for her to remain a virgin, as was the common way to deal with temple virgins who reached early adulthood. That explains Luke 1:34, the likely presence of half-brothers from Joseph's previous marriage, and Joseph's early death due to old age at the time of his marriage to Mary. It is also consistent with the fact that she accompanied Jesus throughout His ministry, wich perhaps would have been harder (or less necessary) to do if there were other children of hers around.
So, if somehow we find out that in fact she was not a virgin, nothing would change, really, but we would be surprised.
Note that it does not put the Church in any uncomfortable position. We do not derive all our theology from the scripture. We are a historical Church which put some of her institutional memory to scripture. Since the circumstances of Mary's life outside of her participation in the ministry of Christ are not the focus of the Gospel, the=is historical knowledge was left as traditional rather than scriptural.
Nothing like the real soup the Protestantism find itself in as it ,on one hand, proclaime that all of its doctrines are from the scripture, and then, on the other hand, teaches salvation by faith alone which is dirctly contradicted by the scriptire. Resolve that one for me, please.
I am sorry to hear that, since the scripture very clearly records that as a fact, John 20:21-23.
That is correct, He does promise forgiveness upon confession, but as we saw in John 20:21,23, that confession has to be to someone Jesus sent "as Himself", -- a priest. Compare 2 Corinthians 5:18 where reconciliation is characterized as a "ministry".
Jesus does encourage forgiveness between the laity, of course, -- I am not denying that.
Very good. Let us first examine 1 Corinthians 1: 1 1 2 Paul, called to be an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 2 to the church of God that is in Corinth, to you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be holy, with all those everywhere who call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours. 3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 4 I give thanks to my God always on your account for the grace of God bestowed on you in Christ Jesus,
Here, Jesus is an emissary of God, sent to men.
1 Corinthians 8: 5 Indeed, even though there are so-called gods in heaven and on earth (there are, to be sure, many "gods" and many "lords"), 6 3 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom we exist.
Again, Jesus is lesser than God the Father.
"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom". (Hebrews 1:8).
Did Paul write Hebrews? How do you know? At any rate, let us examine Hebrews.
Hebrews 1: 1 1 In times past, God spoke in partial and various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; 2 in these last days, he spoke to us through a son, whom he made heir of all things and through whom he created the universe, 3 who is the refulgence of his glory, the very imprint of his being, and who sustains all things by his mighty word. When he had accomplished purification from sins, he took his seat at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 as far superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 5 2 For to which of the angels did God ever say: "You are my son; this day I have begotten you"? Or again: "I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me"? 6 And again, when he leads 3 the first-born into the world, he says: "Let all the angels of God worship him." 7 Of the angels he says: "He makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame";
Here, Jesus is the first born son that has been given all his power by God. Not Trinitarian at all. Let us follow up with:
Hebrews: 7 Of the angels he says: "He makes his angels winds and his ministers a fiery flame"; 8 but of the Son: "Your throne, O God, 4 stands forever and ever; and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. 9 You loved justice and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions";
God the Father is called the God of Jesus, and even more noteworthy; Paul has redirected Psalm 45:7-8, which describes a human king to describing Jesus. Hardly Trinitarian here either.
Acts is not written by Paul, you know. At any rate, lying to the Holy Spirit is equated to lying to God. Not expressly Trinitarian, you know.
I do congratulate you and your brethren. I believe that you might be finding out just how much non Scriptural beliefs you guys really have, and how much your beliefs are actually decreed by the Church and not found expressly in Scripture. I do have hope for you all, as I do for all mankind. I pray that all men will find salvation, yet I do not believe that all men will accept it. And that breaks my heart.
I am here to discuss the scripture in its relation to the teaching of the Catholic Church, or to Protestant errors. I have zero interest in discussing your thoughts about justification or about the Church, however critical of emphatically stated they are.
The only scriptural reference that you make directly is Galationas 3,4 and that letter deals with the non-salvific nature of the Hebrew law. We all agree, we are not saved by the works of the law. But neither we are saved by faith alone, see James 2:17-26.
I wasn't attempting to prove the Nicene Trinitarian formula, I was merely refuting your false assertion Paul does not quote God except for the three introductory verses in Acts 9.
Good, for you cannot prove the Nicene formula from Paul. Now, what I was attempting to show is that Paul does not quote God as John and the Gospel writers do. Paul says that God said this or that to him, but not in the context of Jesus delivering a speech or John experiencing the Revelation. Why do you think that is?
To whom was Paul praying, and who was talking back to him?
Paul says here "the Lord".
No. I can quote Isaiah myself, but that does not make my pronouncements any more true than they are unto themselves.
Now, you do not have to answer my questions, but you did not answer my fill-in-the-blank question as to who is speaking in Isaiah 28:17.
Isaiah 28:16 says that the Lord God is speaking.
In other words, no proof or quotes will be good enough for you. Is that right? We have more than answered your requests with many, many verses. Perhaps you are not asking correctly. Just what do you want??? What will satisfy, I hope is an honest request for information?
a Christian must never insult the Blood of Christ by insinuating that what He has done for us is in any way inadequate.
Indeed. The gifts that Christ gave us, ministerial priesthood one among them, are wholly sufficient for the salvation of absolutely everyone who wishes to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4).
Wrong again. The Feast of the Sheaves is Jewish and Pentecost is Christian. Just as the Passover is Jewish and the Eucharist is Christian. I showed that and you had the grace to disappear at that point.
C-Y-C: First of all I don't respond well to commands like “Show me....Show me...”,
Then don't.
You can go to Hebrews where Paul is positively effusive with quotes from God in support of his writings, Chapter 3, 4, and 8 make a good start.
Who says Paul wrote Hebrews? At any rate, pull up direct quotes from God that support specific Pauline Trinitarian verses, if you please.
And now you want someone to find in Paul's writings a creed he doesn't discuss (it was devised long after his death) in a predictable and predicted fashion
Applause!!!!! Very good!!!! What I was looking for. All the Protestants here are shaking with anger that I would dare say such a thing. Now, let me ask you if YOU believe in the Nicene Creed.
The heart of the matter is Paul doesn't support the teachings of the Catholic church therefore he is suspect.
There we have not gotten through yet. Paul is not suspect. He is one of the two greatest Apostles. It is only misinterpretation of his writings that have led so many astray.
I congratulate you very much. You have realized something and posted it.
This indeed is an open thread, which is why I took the liberty to ask if anyone opposed to the idea of Catholic priesthood on scriptural grounds could apply the same rigor of scriptural exegesis to the cardinal Protestant error of Sola Fide.
However, the readers benefit more if the discussion remains more or less on topic.
But Mark, what does this have to do with John’s Revelation and Paul’s Revelations? This is what we’ve gone back and forth with.
Thank you.
Trinty UCC is as Christian as you are Baptist.
Try harder next time.
Do the tiniest amount of research, even if it doesn't confirm your prejudices. It may not help you win the argument, but it might stifle a lot of laughter at your expense.
You've lost. We're closed.
You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here.
Nite.
Questions? Well, how about this instead: the nature of Nicene Trinitarianism was not understood by the Apostles and the early Church and most definitely not by Paul. It was developed over 3 1/2 centuries by the Church and declared doctrine at Nicea. The nature of this doctrine cannot be proven by Scripture alone, only supported by some verses here and there once the doctrine is well formulated and understood (and contradicted by many more), and therefore anyone who believes in the Nicene Creed had better take the Bible Only Believer (R) trademark off themselves.
Sure. I am asking for Pauline proof of the Nicene Creed.
While I enjoy the good life as much as a Catholic should, the idea to somehow justify Protestant errors by pointing out that they, on top of every other harm they did, also brought about untold riches on its followers, — is as unbiblical as the rest of their wobbly theological edifice.
Paul does not lay out God's vision, as John did. He did not lay out the life of Jesus, as the Gospel writers did. His gospel is different from the Gospels in that respect. But it was a sidebar created from an original discussion about Pauline proofs for the Nicene Creed and proof of the Triune God. If we could get back to that, that's fine with me.
I am happy to just consider the New Testament as written and as a single whole.
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.