Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Eastern Orthodox also hold the tradition that Mary committed no sin. When did Protestants come to reject this universal Christian belief. It must have been after the time of Martin Luther:
Luther's Sermon: "On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527 It is a sweet and pious belief that the infusion of Mary's soul was effected without original sin; so that in the very infusion of her soul she was also purified from original sin and adorned with God's gifts, receiving a pure soul infused by God; thus from the first moment she began to live she was free from all sin"
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/martin_luther_on_mary.htm
In case you are unaware that ALL KNOWING God has a Word for the Vatican/RCC/Catholics, see this... " Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.." Mark 7:13
You are saying that Christ was talking about the Catholic Church here?
It is a Mary allright, but a different one.
Not trying to gang up on anyone here, but if this Mary was a "different" one, then where is Jesus' mother even mentioned as being at the cross in this passage or at the tomb in the next chapter? This Mary is the same.
What to do, what to do??? In order to support the tradition appeal is made to the uninspired books of the apocrypha and fallible, often confused men, so called “Church Fathers”
Not to mention all the forgeries like Pseudo–Isidorian Decretals, The Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis.
The primary evidence for the Assumption and the Papacy are found in previous condemned heretical/apochryphal documents and forgeries. How this is not an issue for most RC's is mind numbing.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html
I don’t believe that. Then what about Elijah? He told us about both. As far as afraid of worshiping - ALL KNOWING GOd knew it would happen. There are Scriptures pertaining to that.
If we don’t believe that God told us all we need to know, we have no faith in Him.
One thing is certain, it certainly separates the wheat from the chaff. Christians have faith in HIM/HIS WORD, and Catholics have faith in their church and it’s man made teachings/doctrine.
“Now, we know that Christ will not abandon His disciples at the end of the world because other passages of the Bible tell us explicitly that He will not. But that is not information contained in the grammar of Matthew 28:20, just as the information you insist on in regard to Mary and Joseph is not there on the basis of the grammar of Matthew 1:25.”
My grammar is fine. In both verses “until” marks a off a period of time, limiting it as I wrote earlier, “Until, is a conjunction in Matt.1:25 and thus connects a before phrase and an after phrase. Nothing complicated about it.”
In the case of Matt. 1:25 the after phrase is “she gave birth to a son” and informs when the first ends.
In Matt. 28:20 what is said about what follows “until” is the ending of a system or age.
In both cases what is first is limited by what follows.
“Now, we know that Christ will not abandon His disciples at the end of the world because other passages of the Bible tell us explicitly that He will not.”
And indeed that cannot be drawn from the grammar of Matt. 28:20 even if theologically correct.
in 1870 when Pius decided he wanted to be infallible and split the church, OH, so that's when this heresy entered in.
Yes, that is when Rome officially foisted it on the church as a mandatory belief.
It appears to be the creation of Peter Olivi, a Franciscan who was more than once accused of heresy (an auspicious parent for the concept of infallibility, wouldn’t you say?). His reason for attempting to limit papal power seems to have been to prevent future popes from rescinding a ruling favorable to Franciscans made by Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280).
Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it “…a work of the devil…the Father of Lies.” and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.
Pope John XXII declares papal infallibility "a work of the devil..the Father of Lies". Pope Pius IX declares it a dogma in 1870.
Another intersting tidbit of history. The bull Dominus ac Redemptor Noster of Pope Clement XIV, On July 21, 1773, "infalliblly" banned the Jesuit order by a perpetual decree never to be rescinded
The banished Spanish Jesuits ended up on the island of Corsica. In 1801, Pope Pius VII signed a Concordat with Napoleon Bonaparte and crowned him Emperor of France in 1804.
On Sunday, the 7th of August 1814 Pope Pius VII removed the perpetual ban of his predecessor, (offcourse, infallibly)!!
WELL PUT.
I MUCH AGREE.
THX.
You are a liar for saying that. You know the truth, but willfully choose to deceive.
Amen! A ‘willing sacrifice’ INDEED. Thank you, Jesus.
The Catholics are known for their word games to suit their agenda. Trying to bring Jesus down as helpless victim - without any power. More ‘pit’ teachings.
Not the Mary we know through God’s Word.
The ‘other Mary’, the fantasy Mary that the RCC uses to deceive it’s subjects.
Don’t call me a liar - the RCC has put the ‘liar label’ on Mary by their own words - NOT MARY’S. She said and knew she needed a Savior. The RCC sure likes to condemn the name of Mary in every way possible.
But anyone that speaks those words, they boomerang back - they don’t touch Mary. She was a faithful servant who fulfilled the destiny on her life. The Vatican thinks it’s their destiny and to use and abuse her name for their own agenda. Quick sand!
“banned the Jesuit order by a perpetual decree never to be rescinded”
Now that is a papal decree that I can wholeheartedly endorse. The world would be a better place if it would never have been lifted.
Talk about a diabolically misnamed entity ... the Society of Jesus.
You're correct that courtesy should have been followed and I should have pinged Natural Law. However, you are most uncorrect to ascribe that Christ was a victim in His going to the cross. This only illustrate a blinding love for the Church over a love for God's written word. What a pity.
Augustine only withdrew a few small works written before he became a bishop and before he wrote "The City of God." Please tell me what part of St. Augustine's writing you think conflicts with Catholic teaching?
Do you mean in a "Treatise of Predestination of the Saints" or "The City of God"? Catholics do not accept the premise in Predestination. It must have something to do with scriptures.
Not the Mary we know through God’s Word.
The ‘other Mary’, the fantasy Mary that the RCC uses to deceive it’s subjects.
INDEED.
And they know not the difference. Dreadfully sad.
Now that is a papal decree that I can wholeheartedly endorse. The world would be a better place if it would never have been lifted.
Talk about a diabolically misnamed entity ... the Society of Jesus.
INDEED.
imho . . . rather like a LOT of hideous junk done & promulgated in Mary’s name.
Dr. Eck.: I'd like to be pinged to your answer
Here. Indeed, good question. 2336
Yes, good point. The Sacred Tradition precedes the Sacred Scripture and is the source of it. The Scripture is a subset of the Tradition (cf Jn 20:30).
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.