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.
Promise? :)
Paul calls Jesus a man on a number of occasions.
So? Jesus DID have a human nature, did he not? And were there not certain things pertaining to that nature that were purely human? He died, he suffered, he rose again? He had a human body of flesh and blood, he came into the world through a woman's body, he was tempted, he did not ever sin.
Certainly. But if Jesus were to incarnate in front of you, would you call Him a man or would you call Him God and Creator? If you were speaking in a theological fashion, would you refer to His humanity, or to His Deity?
Paul, as well as the others believed in ONE God. Not three gods. He called the Father God, he called Jesus God and also the Holy Spirit, God. Paul was a monotheist. Why would he refer to Jesus and the Holy Spirit as God if they were not one with the Father?
Exactly. Why would Paul keeping referring to God the Father as the God of Jesus Christ?
Rah rah as in we accept Paul as an Apostle and the writer of God-breathed scripture who God used to reveal major doctrines of the Christian faith? Absolutely! Do we worship Paul? Give me a break! Do I really need to answer that? Name even one church that does that, one.
Any five point Calvinist church or individual.
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible...
Very good. You could not prove the Creed from any Pauline verse. I don't think that you could even prove the Apostle's Creed from Paul. And at any rate, you forgot the ending.
I could show you from Paul's epistles that he confirms each and every one of these truths, but what would be the point?
You guys keep telling me that you could show me, but nobody here has. Where does Paul call Jesus the equivalent of co-eternal and co-existing God to the Father and the Holy Spirit? The dominant references to Jesus indicate that Jesus is a super David - an even more greatly favoured man than David, who was given all authority by God the Father, who had to be raised from the dead by God the Father, and sits at the Father's right hand (chief subordinate). If not super-man, than major subordinationist. Which also is expressly negated by the Creed.
My point here is that the Church took centuries to come up with the Trinitarian formula - the Jewish Apostles were not even sure of the Divinity of Jesus, much less the Holy Spirit. It is the Church that declared the formula, not Scripture and if you believe in the Creed, you are extra-Biblical, and not sola Scriptura at all.
That is correct.
Our founding fathers fashioned their phraseology in the Constitution and in the so-called Federalist Papers out of the writings of John Locke (and of course others). Would Locke have understood the Constitution and agreed with it? I rather suspect he would have had he lived another hundred years through all the events that helped to mold its arguments and then read it.
I would agree with that.
It is He Paul connects here to the calling of every Christian and thus the formation of the Church. Who is this Lord, if not the “one Lord Jesus Christ,” who Paul here connects with the “one faith”? And what is the “one faith” but that which follows immediately in the Nicene Creed, every bit of which, though phrased differently, can be found in Paul’s writings? And finally, who is the “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all,” if not the “one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth”?
In his writings, Paul wavers a lot between thinking of Jesus as human, as super human, and sorta kinda once in a while as a subordinate God. Paul was a devout Jew and it was the greatest heresy and blasphemy to think of any man as a god.
No, the words of Nicaea are not the words of St. Paul. But the thoughts are all certainly in line with what he wrote two and a half centuries earlier.
Actually, Paul's thoughts are closer to those of Origen, who followed the subordinatist thinking and was posthumously drummed out of the Church for that line of thought.
That some later twisted Paul’s words and used them in support of an Arius or a Marcion does not in any way make Paul an Arian or Marcionite.
Agreed. All of the Apostles thought much along the same Christological lines - the super David.
So, the question is, had Paul lived long enough to experience the various heretical teachings and then read the Nicene Creed would he have understood and agreed with it. Again, I am quite sure the answer would be yes.
It is entirely possible, I will grant that. Paul was pretty stiff necked, though - before and after his conversion. :)
Agreed. Scripture and the Catechism do just fine.
Try harder.
I do not take or eschew action at the bidding of the likes of you.
If by obtuse, you really mean truthful and accurate, then the answer is yes.
Don't start this again.
Attempting to twist the clear words and understanding is an effort in futility.
Mark, the NIV tries to remove this blatant inconsistency by altering the text in Act 22 to read:
9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.
The Greek word used in manuscripts is akouo (this is where we get our "acoustics" from), which means to hear. In a few instances it is translated as hearken, or give audience, but the NIV experts argue that it also means to perceive, which then they stretch to mean "understand."
This way, they can "patch up" the inconsistency in order to preserve the "inerrancy." The Book has been "cooked" now for almost 2,000 years by adding, deleting, or otherwise redacting, so it is no wonder that the Bible shows an impressive degree of internal consistency, although its perfection is still the making. :)
Why not just admit your wrong in arguing that you are saved through Grace alone by faith and works.
It has always been by faith alone through the OT and NT, whether it was before the Cross, or after the Cross.
Heb. 11:11 By faith Sarah herself received strength to conceive seed...
Her subsequent actions did not precede her faith. In fact it was only because of her faith that she able to do anything.
Maybe this verse will help.
Heb. 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off...
It is faith alone, no mention of all the works these superstars did buying them that far off promise. It was faith alone.
Yes, and what so many Protestants forget is that, by necessity, his human nature remains hidden except in his passion. In order for Jesus (the man) never to sin, his human will had to be subordinated to his divine will at all times, and was therefore never expressed as something separate or discernible (except perhaps for a fleeting moment in the Garden of Gethsemane)
So, the Hollywood Jesus, sometimes man, sometimes God, of the Protestant world is a contradiction in terms. They like to portray him as this nice man who every now and then " switches" on his divine nature and acts as God.
The only part of Jesus' humanity that comes to be expressed is his bodily form, his suffering and death. That which suffers corruption (hunger, pain, thirst, sorrow, etc.) is not divine by definition.
Therefore his Incarnation is not an icon of the invisible God. When Paul refers to him as such, he is talking about the risen Christ in the glorified body.
I would venture to say that Paul probably shared the adoptionist views of so many early Christians, considering the pre-resurrection Jesus a man who was made God when, as Paul insists, God raised him.
You could not prove the Creed from any Pauline verse
The Pauline verses used in the Creed are somewhat altered. For instance, the Creed says "and he rose on the third day according to the scriptures." But Paul says "and was raised [by God] on the third day according tot he scriptures."
Subtle but significant.
The rejection of Scripture as the final authority is one more example of how your church has copied Judaism. You can't change beliefs without "tradition" being a coequal of Scripture. Scripture doesn't change, "tradition" does.
Another example of how Roman Catholicism has fallen into error and copied Judaism. The need for "Grace refills" evidences the lack of a sufficient sacrifice. Judaism has no once and for all sacrifice and Roman Catholicism does not either.
I've come to realize that understanding God is not done with Israel is a very hard truth for RC's to come to because so much of what their church teaches is a copy of Judaism. If God turns back to the Jews after the fullness of the Gentiles is brought in where does that leave them?
Just WHERE does it leave them, if they are following the Gospel of the Kingdom and not the Gospel of the Grace of God?
AMEN! Scriptural, succinct and undeniable.
Judaism has no once and for all sacrifice and Roman Catholicism does not either.
Roman Catholics need to read Hebrews.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." -- Hebrews 10:9-18"Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
"No more offering for sin." Neither Jews nor Roman Catholics understand that. RCs still re-sacrifice Christ with every mass for debts they imagine are still outstanding, and presume their own good works provide a recompense for those sins, all in contradiction to the word of God and the completed work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
Amen
This is why it is so important to show them they are standing on the wrong side of the Cross. The Cross is empty. The price has been paid. It is finished.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
THX THX.
WELL PUT.
Though I think they even worsened the worst of Judiasm on such scores.
BECAUSE EVEN JUDIASM . . . AT ITS BETTER POINTS
DID NOT HAVE THE LEVEL OF IDOLATRY THE RC INSTITUTION AIDS, ABETS, FOSTERS, ENCOURAGES.
Though I think they even worsened the worst of Judiasm on such scores.
WELL PUT.
THX.
You won't find much exegesis from the protestants. Their specialty is eisigeis. They begin with the fallacies of Calvin's TULIPs and imprint them into all scripture and discussion. The inability to consider an extra-TULIP interpretation of Scripture or tradition borders on psychotic.
EXCELLENT QUESTION.
THX.
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.