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.
And it was just as true when Augustine said it 1100 years before Calvin's milkman made his morning rounds...
Umm, yes, a revelation.
"If ye have heard of the Dispensation of the Grace of God which IS GIVEN ME to you-ward; how that BY REVELATION He made known UNTO ME, the MYSTERY...which in OTHER AGES was NOT MADE KNOWN unto THE SONS OF MEN as it is NOW REVEALED unto His Holy apostles and prophets BY THE SPIRIT. That the Gentiles should be follow heirs,and OF THE SAME BODY and partakers of His promise in Christ BY THE GOSPEL....and to make all men see what is the FELLOWSHIP of the MYSTERY, which FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD hath been HID IN GOD who created all things by Jesus Christ". (Ephesians 3:2,3,5,6,9).
I have said countless times, 2 or 3 HUMAN WITNESSES, NOT 2 or 3 of the TRINITY. Are you having trouble READING?
To confront a sinner? What are you talking about? I have not used the word sinner yet. Are you having trouble READING?
Find someone else to peck to death with a million ridiculous "points".
I am satisfied I have given you scripture after scripture, bent over backward to accomodate your ignorance of Paul, explained in detail the Dispensation of the Grace of God, the Church the Body of Christ, the One New Man, and Paul's unique calling. You're on your own. Good luck, and may God's Grace be enough to satisfy your soul one day. SVITW
Umm, yes, a revelation.
Umm, no, not a revelation. The Church is an institution. Your Ephesians verses are not about the Church and its creation by Jesus.
I have said countless times, 2 or 3 HUMAN WITNESSES, NOT 2 or 3 of the TRINITY. Are you having trouble READING?
You posited that the 2 or 3 witnesses to Paul's Revelation were the 3 Persons of the Trinity. They are not human witnesses. The verses you quoted did refer to human witnesses in confronting one's brother who had sinned. I was the one who pointed out that they did not apply to Paul's Revelation whatsoever.
Find someone else to peck to death with a million ridiculous "points".
I'm having fun watching your posts hop from point to point without notice or connection.
I am satisfied I have given you scripture after scripture
I am happy with your satisfaction, yet please note that almost none of your Scripture quoting addresses anything like proofs or evidences that back up what you are claiming.
bent over backward to accomodate your ignorance of Paul,
Interesting statement. I would say that in our exchanges, you exhibit specific ignorance of much of Paul, and are not aware of the depth of the verses that you are more familiar with.
explained in detail the Dispensation of the Grace of God
An irrelevant sidebar to the conversation, but thank you.
the Church the Body of Christ
Actually, no. The Church's creation and initial teachings are found mostly in the Gospels, with continuity into Acts.
the One New Man
I must have missed your extensive details on this.
and Paul's unique calling
Paul was a bishop, called by Jesus on the road to Damascus to quit killing Christians and become a great evangelizer. Certainly the light (and the confusion over the voices) is unique.
You're on your own.
Alone with God? Okay, I'm good with that.
Good luck, and may God's Grace be enough to satisfy your soul one day.
What an odd statement; the latest in a long string of them. God is not about satisfying me; it is I, as His Creation, that with His Grace, may satisfy Him. God owes me nothing. I owe Him everything. Without Him, I am less than nothing - I don't even exist. In order to attain salvation with Him, I must follow my imitation of Christ - even as Paul imitates Christ. When my Judgement comes, I prefer to be on His right, and not on His left - I will pay attention for the Master's return, and will use the talents on loan from Him in order to repay Him to the best that His Grace and the talents that He has loaned me will do (Matthew 25).
Thanks! :) Things are pretty crazy right now, but nothing bad. Just real busy. Hope it quiets down soon. I just saw the thread about AG's niece. I hope she is doing OK.
I'm really, really not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I find I can't let this comment go without saying something. Please indulge me for a moment. I do not accept at all the idea that in order for Jesus never to sin that he somehow had to "subordinate" his human will to his divine will. That would be a kind of "cheating". Why would scripture state he was tempted in all parts as we are yet he was without sin? He was/is fully human and fully divine and the fact that he lived a perfect sinless life was why his sacrifice on the cross was for our sins. He had no sin to make payment for of his own. He was the spotless lamb of God.
I also disagree that Jesus only gave us a peek at his human nature from time to time (like at the "passion"). He was hungry, he got tired and weary, he cried, he needed to eat, he got thirsty, he slept. He also performed miracles, he knew people's thoughts and schemes, he knew of future happenings. He was both human and divine.
And Markbsnr, I agree with you that I do not believe that we as humans on earth will ever truly understand. Presumably we will understand after our own resurrection, else it will not matter to us then. For now, we have God in incarnate form, called Jesus, reaching down to man on his own level. See I can be reasonable. :o)
And truly I would say the same things to St. Augustine that I said to you.
As for me:
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. – John 5:24
Give us this day our daily bread. – Matt 6:11
I am that bread of life. – John 6:48
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life. – John 6:63
It seems to me they not only realize it but believe it, for I have never heard or read a self-professed Calvinist dispute Calvin's assertion that Christ not only descended but also suffered in hell.
Show me another example of this in the Bible. Then you can also explain to me why every reputable Bible translates the verse as "heard" and only the NIV as "understood?"
Am I being blatantly inconsistent”?
Yes, imo.
Just copying and pasting words there.
It’s interesting how it’s acceptable to some when they use them but not acceptable when it’s used back at them by others.
That is something that would be very near and dear to Orthodox Christians and many Catholic monastics I have read. It is the core of Mariology in both Churches.
What do you know of Mary's character? Did she ever draw attention to herself? Or is she "transparent?" What is her most redeeming characteristic that all mortals are called to strive for? Perfect obedience. The only thing we know about her will is her submission.
There’s no point in debating with someone who is not only not a Christian but seems to make it their life’s mission to cast doubt and dispersion on the Bible and it’s truthfulness for the sole purpose of destroying another’s faith.
As someone commented, why should anyone take the interpretation of the Bible of a self-proclaimed agnostic seriously?
The World English Bible, The NwT, The Int. Standard Bible, but then I’ve not researched ALL translations.
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament comments:
“Acts 22:9
But they heard not the voice (thn de fwnhn ouk hkousan). The accusative here may be used rather than the genitive as in verse Acts 22:7 to indicate that those with Paul did not understand what they heard (Acts 9:7) just as they beheld the light (Acts 22:9), but did not see Jesus (Acts 9:7). The difference in cases allows this distinction, though it is not always observed as just noticed about Acts 22:14; Acts 26:14. The verb akouw is used in the sense of understand (Mark 4:33; 1 Corinthians 14:2). It is one of the evidences of the genuineness of this report of Paul’s speech that Luke did not try to smooth out apparent discrepancies in details between the words of Paul and his own record already in ch. 9. The Textus Receptus adds in this verse: “And they became afraid” (kai emfoboi egenonto). Clearly not genuine.
www.bibletools.org/index.cfm//fuseaction/Bible.show/.../
Another example of idiomatic language that is similar?
The words of Jesus at Matt. 7:23. He says, ‘Get away from me, I NEVER KNEW you’. But if he did not “Know” those he was speaking to, how would he know they were workers of lawlessness?
Since you asked, gladly. Coming from a Protestant, what you say doesn't surprise me, and I don't mean that as a personal insult. Your phronema or mindset is so legalistic that your concept of sin and salvation is incompatible with that of the Apostolic Church—well, at least the Eastern Church with some notable exceptions in the Western Church—for almost 2,000 years.
That's why your comment doesn't disappoint me, but Mark's does, assuming I understood it correctly, because it reminds me how much his Church has changed.
To you not only is sin no different than driving 55 in a 35 mph zone (breaking the law), but in your mind all your sins, past, present and future, have already been redeemed and you owe nothing. You are free to be exactly the way you want to be. You are "saved" because someone paid your bill and the Judge is "satisfied".
In the East, sin means missing the mark (Greek: hamartia). The "mark" is Christ. Sin, therefore, is failure to conform to Christ. Conversely, salvation is being conformed to Christ (theosis—being god-like, being restoried to the likeness of God).
Santification is a process of becoming God-like by grace ("become therefore perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect"; the verse in original Greek is in the future tense), and salvation—again, by grace—is achieving it.
That which is God-like, in God's image and likeness, will be with God, united with God in spirit and in deed. In your world, on the other hand, things are reversed: you are "saved" first then sanctified, whatever that means.
Being God-like means acting, thinking, wishing, willing, etc. according to God's will, an not your inclination, tendencies and urges. The reason why Jesus is perfect in his humanity is because he perfectly conformed his human inclinations to his divine nature.
Blessed Mary is the highest of all saints because the Church teaches that she chose not to do anything against God's will. In other words, she conformed her will to God's will willingly and perfectly and achieved theosis in her lifetime. Perfect obedience means following someone else's will.
Why would scripture state he was tempted in all parts as we are yet he was without sin?
Because in his humanity he was subject to temptation, as we all are. Being tempted is not a sin. Giving in to temptation is. Would God want you to give in to temptation? Therefore conforming your human will to God's will is the only assured way not to sin.
I also disagree that Jesus only gave us a peek at his human nature from time to time (like at the "passion"). He was hungry, he got tired and weary, he cried, he needed to eat, he got thirsty, he slept.
Passion(s) means not only suffering pain, and death, but hunger, thirst, sorrow, etc. When the Old Testament assigns these passions to God they are called anthropomorphisms, i.e. human-like characteristics ascribed to God for us to be able to relate to God in imperfect human terms, the way we are, what we feel, etc.
But the way the Church understands God, he is not subject to passions (pain, suffeirng, death, anger, envy, pride, etc.), which are an indication of our corrupt nature and ill will, which is to say decay or mortality. Corrupt will acts against God and leads to death (sin).
The Church understands that separation from the source of life, indeed Life itself, God, is sin and sin is death because there is no Life (God) in it. So, if we willingly live in sin we live in death. Therefore the only way we can be in communion with God, and have life, is if we conform our will to his will.
He also performed miracles, he knew people's thoughts and schemes, he knew of future happenings. He was both human and divine.
Apparently he did not know of all future happenings, as he himself admits. He was perceptive and smart, but not clairvoyant. He appears to have had revelations, but the pre-risen Jesus was in every way human, and his body fully subject to corruption, like ours are, according to Gospel accounts.
He walked on water because he had perfect faith, not because he was divine. Peter walked on water, but he was not divine, while he had faith and sank when he lost it.
The apostles preformed miracles too, because they were empowered to do so. That doesn't make them divine. Even Pharaoh's sorcerers performed miracles...
Jesus died in in his humanity but not in his divinity. He didn't swoon, he didn't fake it according to the Gospels. He really suffered and died, but only in his human nature, bodily.
In his divine nature, he neither died nor suffered passions, nor did he bleed nor feel pain, hunger, fear, temptation, nor did he have a body.
Jesus of the Gospels is not a schizophrenic multiple-personality case of the Protestant world. He wasn't divine on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and human the rest of the week. The Church proclaimed its faith in Christ by asserting that his natures are inseparable, but his wills are separate and distinct; one divine and the other human.
In his divine nature he is a spirit without a beginning and without an end; in his humanity he is flesh, with a human spirit, "born of a woman, made under the law" (Gal 4:4).
His natures are not mixed or intermingled, or confused, nor competing against each other, but in perfect harmony.. Hence his human will never opposes his divine will in perfect obedience because the divinity does not conform itself to humanity.
The Church spoke the language of the Gospels and the New Testament and understood it it to mean "heard". You also fail to give me a single example where the term "hear" is translated as "understand" anywhere else. It is somewhat pretentious of scholars today to presume they understand the koine Greek better than the Church did in her own language.
I disagree. The verb "heard" is used as is "made aware of," as in "I never heard of such a thing." Comprehension is not implied.
Matthew 13:13 proves him wrong.
or the man made theology of Luther, Calvin or UFO’s or lemon marmalade....
all ridiculous man-made constructs...particularly marmalade...
“All we can do is hope that God quickens some so that they open their Bibles and learn the Truth rather than depending on others.”
Exactly. Reading the whole Bible and believing it all is a difficult task for many. It’s much easier to exclude some verses from God that make their heresy easier to rationalize.
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.