Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
.- Pope Benedict XVI said today that achieving Christian unity requires more than “cordiality and cooperation” and that it must be accompanied by interior conversion.
“Faith in Christ and interior conversion, both individual and communal, must constantly accompany our prayer for Christian unity,” said the Pope to over 8,000 pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall on Jan. 18.
The Pope’s comments mark the start of the 2012 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that runs until Jan. 25. It will be observed by over 300 Christian churches and ecclesial communities around the globe.
The Pope asked for “the Lord in a particular way to strengthen the faith of all Christians, to change our hearts and to enable us to bear united witness to the Gospel.”
In this way, he said, they “will contribute to the new evangelization and respond ever more fully to the spiritual hunger of the men and women of our time.”
The Pope explained that the concept of a week of prayer for Christian unity was initiated in 1908 by Paul Wattson, an Episcopalian minister from Maryland. One year later, he became a Catholic and was subsequently ordained to the priesthood.
Pope Benedict recalled how the initiative was supported by his predecessors Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV. It was then “developed and perfected” in the 1930s by the Frenchman Abbé Paul Couturier, who promoted prayer “for the unity of the Church as Christ wishes and according to the means he wills.”
The mandate for the week of prayer, the Pope underscored, comes from the wish of Christ himself at the Last Supper “that they may all be one.” He observed that this mission was given a particular impetus by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) but added that “the unity we strive for cannot result merely from our own efforts.” Rather, “it is a gift we receive and must constantly invoke from on high.”
The theme for 2012 Week of Prayer – “All shall be changed by the victory of Jesus Christ our Lord” – was crafted by the Polish Ecumenical Council. Pope Benedict said it reflects “their own experience as a nation,” which stayed faithful to Christ “in the midst of trials and upheavals,” including years of occupation by the Nazis and later the Communists.
The Pope tied the victory the Polish people experienced over their oppressors to overcoming the disunity that marks Christians.
He said that the “unity for which we pray requires inner conversion, both shared and individual,” and it cannot be “limited to cordiality and cooperation.” Instead, Christians must accept “all the elements of unity which God has conserved for us.”
Ecumenism, the Pope stated, is not an optional extra for Catholics but is “the responsibility of the entire Church and of all the baptized.” Christians, he said, must make praying for unity an “integral part” of their prayer life, “especially when people from different traditions come together to work for victory in Christ over sin, evil, injustice and the violation of human dignity.”
Pope Benedict then touched on the lack of unity in the Christian community, which he said “hinders the effective announcement of the Gospel and endangers our credibility.” Evangelizing formerly Christian countries and spreading the Gospel to new places will be “more fruitful if all Christians together announce the truth of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, and give a joint response to the spiritual thirst of our times,” he explained.
The Pope concluded his comments with the hope that this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity will lead to “increased shared witness, solidarity and collaboration among Christians, in expectation of that glorious day when together we will all be able to celebrate the Sacraments and profess the faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
The general audience finished with Pope Benedict addressing pilgrims in various languages, including greeting a group of men and women from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, before leading the crowd in the Our Father and imparting his apostolic blessing.
Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?
Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
Ezek 3:1 Moreover he said unto me, Son of man, eat that thou findest; eat this scroll, and go speak unto the house of Israel. 2 So I opened my mouth, and he caused me to eat that scroll. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness.
Jer 15:16 Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.
Revelation 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
1 Corinthians 10:3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
Eat and drink the word of God.
Hello?
CB- You Quoted Augustine.
YOUR Post 772
" But most of those who were present, by not understanding Him, were offended; for in hearing these things, they thought only of flesh, that which themselves were. But the apostle says, and says what is true, “To be carnally-minded is death.” The Lord gives us His flesh to eat, and yet to understand it according to the flesh is death; while yet He says of His flesh, that therein is eternal life. Therefore we ought not to understand the flesh carnally.” -Augustine, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Tractate XXVII.1
Now Correct me if I am Wrong But did you not post this to try to prove Augustine did not believe in the real presence. So I showed you he did believe in the True body .
"AUGUSTINE “Christ was carried in his Own Hands when, referring to His Own Body, he said, ‘This is My Body’ [Matt. 26:26]. For he carried that Body in His Hands” (Explanations of the Psalms 33:1:10 [A.D. 405])."
I post the church fathers because it is what Catholics hold as scripture. It’s not what I hold as scripture. Besides, Augustine said not to think of it carnally. It is not His carnal flesh like the Catholics tell us it is per Augustine. He was not holding His carnal flesh. Catholics teach that the host changes to His physical i.e. carnal flesh.
All due respect. Your Statement is Totally wrong. You are misreading and understanding the truth of Augustine. He is not declaring what you stated.
He is pointing out that you cannot humanly(flesh represents human thinking) look at it. It is spiritual(Meaning God's doing not man) how it becomes the true flesh of Christ.
It is above our true understanding on earth. Just like if God heals someone not even a medical doctor can truly understand from God's view. It is all in the word How. Do we understand how God made the creation( The Universe)? No! But we know he did do it. We see his invisible attributes like Paul proclaims in The Epistles/letters. Just not the how.
Augustine is showing the miracle of the Eucharist but that man does not know the How. How of it by God.
See post 921
You know it comes down to the real meaning of scripture too.
But anyway have a Good Morning! I did not sleep at all really so going to bed for a few hours.
Freeper Regards!
Maintaining St. Augustine didn’t believe in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist is massively ignorant.
Next we’ll hear he wasn’t Catholic.
This kind of ‘scholarship” can only result from the shallowest skimming of history, anything further would blast it apart. History therefore must be avoided at all cost.
“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
The other one on Tertulian has the word "figured". IMHO It was being used out of context. The letter was for someone who thought Christ came as a Ghost not human/flesh.
So he is showing that He was showing that the elements look like bread and blood but was changed into a real presence. I went to the original full account. It ends with consecration in the mass. Well You cannot consecrate a symbol.
I did not have time to post before. It is the very eucharist by a Catholic Bishop.
Thanks for your post.
I believe the first we see of the protestant ‘symbol’ theology is with Zwingli who fought strongly with Luther.
"And everyone knows that ... "
“Everyone knows” that just another pure, unadulterated, self-worshiping, reinterpretation, has been flung against the wall by one of those who accept "Scripture Alone" and reinterpret Scripture to suit themselves any time it’s convienent for them to do so in hopes that some of what they throw at the wall will stick . The Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation never fails to lead dispensationalists to interpretations of Scripture that have contained within them either subtle or direct denials of the deity of Jesus Christ and/or a refusal to render to Him the glory and honor due Him. We’re supposed to believe Jesus Christ, God Almighty, was and is subject to the arbitrary time lines dispensationalists rely on to support "The Rapture of The Snowflakes Fantasy”.
So, when Christ died and the veil was torn is “the” end of the Old Covenant in the eyes of some of them dispensationalists fantasy experts, when Christ arose is “the” end of the Old Covenant for other dispensationalist fantasy folks, and still others meld their fantasies with what was universally accepted until Magret McDonald ruled otherwise and say when the Temple was destroyed was “the” end of the Old Covenent. To avoid confusion, the Lindsey/Lehaye sindicato “prayfully” rolled the good old twelve sided die of prophecy. Now, we are authoritatively informed, and as dictated by the Snowflake Sindicato, it is when the veil was torn that the Old Covenant ended. With just when “the end” really means “the end”, finally settled, mankind was at last privy to every detail of Margies prophecy. Now that expert Snowflakes clearly understand Margie, they have revealed that when the veil in the Temple was torn., Jesus Christ, God incarnate, lost and to this day has not recovered, the power to raise anyone from the dead. Whatever it takes to avoid upsetting the Rapture fertilizer cart is just fine with those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self, and who believe in the dispensationalist Rapture hokum.
Delving still further into the “clear meaning of Scripture” we check the "Big Popup Book of Escape & Evasion for Dispensationalist Soldiers of the Cross”, which indeed confirms that “the end” of the Old Covenant was when the veil was torn and will oficially be “the end” of the Old Covenant for the rest of the month of January since this year ends with an even number. Now we are ready to see exactly why it is that Mary could not possibly have been raised from the dead. Those who were were seen in Jersusalem risen from the dead prior to Christ having arisen, are Old Testament, Old Covenant, First Resurrection Stage One, folks who rose prior to Christ, who is the “first fruits”. So, they were raised from the dead, but shortly thereafter Jesus Christ, God from God, was denied the right to raise anyone from the dead. Thusly and in spite of what those pesky Apostles of Christ may have taught, "The Rapture of The Snowflakes Fantasy” demands that Christ be unable to raise anyone from the dead so Mary did not and could not have been raised from the dead. Is that all clear ?
For the Snowflake crowd, everything is based on what the "Scripture Alone" dispensationalist crew want to see in Scripture, not what is in Scripture. Forget all the lip service dispensationalists give to what the Bible says about His return being possible at any moment, we’re now informed that it can’t happen no matter what the Scriptues may say. Only after Jesus Christ obeys Margret McDonald, and the LeHaye/Lindsey sindicato sign off that Jesus Christ has adequately done their bidding, only then will dispensationalists remove their chains that bind Jesus Christ and permit Jesus Christ to once again be capable of raising someone from the dead.
The reason this may be news to some folks is because only after Lego Block Method of Scripture Interpretation and the "The Rapture of The Snowflakes Fantasy” were combined less than two centuries ago, so dispensationalists contend, could anyone understand what Scriptue really says instead of what everyone thought it said for over eighteen hundred years. Since each and every one of them say they are infallible interpreters of His Word, it must be so, right?. This dispensationalist hooey all comes from among those same folks who say it was impossible for the Holy Ghost to guide and protect the Church Christ Himself established and entrusted to His Apostles. However, they say, the Holy Spirit could and did guide a young girl more interested in spiritualist levitation yarns than in Christianity, to a vision that defies Scripture, but a vision the dispensationalists accept. Clearly (as in “clear meaniong of the Scripture”), when Christ promised the Holy Spirit would reveal all Truth, He really meant that the Holy Spirit would get around to revealing all Truth no later than the eighteen seventies or thereabouts.
Obviously, those who worship their own, Most High and Holy Self rather than Christ have no problem at all denying the deity of Jesus Christ, God from God, incarnate in human flesh. If such folks decide Christ is incapable of doing something, well, then Christ is incapable of doing something. They then just dig some pearls out of their wallow, sting them together, and say, “see, proof text”.
Another thing, “everyone knows” who isn’t blind themselves, is just how blind those who have accepted “Scripture Alone” and spiritualist dispensationalist hokum become. Such folks are first led into minor errors, then subtle refusals to give Christ the honor and glory He is due, and then into both direct and indirect denials of the deity of Christ. Whether it’s the claim that dispensationalist time lines dictate the degree to which Jesus Christ, God from God, is permitted to be God, or it’s calling Jesus Christ a liar by denying what Christ Himself said about His flesh and His blood being present in the Eucharist, it always comes down to the “Scripture Alone” dispensationalist crowd denying the deity of Christ or a refusing to render unto Christ the glory and honor He is due. Sharing Scripture with such folks is exactly like throwing pearls before swine. It is no wonder we Christians are told :
Titus 3:9 but avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law. For they are unprofitable and vain.
Titus 3:10 A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:
Titus 3:11 Knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.
Those who continue to deny the deity of Christ can fool themselves however they like, but they should get used to the idea of hearing, "I never knew you" from the very Jesus Christ they deny is God.
Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
It’s always interesting to see the lack of scripture in context in your posts. They don’t typically say much other than appear to be some vain attempt at appearing clever.
Well, find proof of the bodily assumption of Mary in scripture. Or is that only in RCC documents?
From one who has no idea what Catholics believe, are taught and thinks that using chopped and formed “quotes” from the early fathers is what they actually believed and taught.
I don’t need to find it explicitly in Scripture, just like you don’t need to find that those who rose from their graves were taken to heaven with Christ.
Protestants like to pretend they know and follow Scripture,
but they don’t even understand it’s purpose.
I understand your confusion if you were not following the whole conversation regarding second and third hand accounts.
No need to go over it all again.
****But, unless they can be verified by Holy Scripture and as long as they do not contradict Scripture, they are part of the history of our faith. But, outside of Holy Scripture, there is no other authority we have above them and that is why God gave them to us.****
So, what we have here is the two legged stool. The Scriptures attest to the early church fathers, and the early church fathers attest to Scripture?
Here is why that two legged stool cannot stand on its own.
We are often given this favorite verse from protestants which they profess supports the Scripture alone faith. “they searched the scriptures daily to see if what paul said is true.”
They searched the OT to see if what Paul said was true.
Can we agree on that?
If they searched the scripture, can we agree that the Bereans were Jews, because the Gentiles would not have the OT Scriptures would they?
Scriptures tells us they received the word, but verified what they were hearing?
What were they verifying? What was important for the Bereans to accept as true?
That Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah which the OT prophesied and that He had delivered them from the slavery and wages of sin.
But, this Jesus was not what they were expecting, according to their Scriptures and that is why He was rejected by His own people. Therefore, first and foremost, they would have accept that Jesus was/is who the Apostles said He was.
Why? Because if Jesus is not God, with the authority to forgive sin and pour grace out upon people, then the Apostles were exactly what Gamaliel said, just like the others who had come before and made such claims and their movement would have fallen apart, just as the others had.
The authority of Jesus, as the Son of God, as God was what the Bereans searched for in Scripture, because the message of Jesus, and Jesus Himself, were radically different than what the Jewish people were waiting to hear.
Jesus told the pharisees and Saducees and Scribes that they searched Scripture thinking they would find eternal life, but did not recognize that life giver when He stood before them. He said they didn’t know Scripture or Him.
It wasn’t that they didn’t have knowledge of Scripture, it is that they were too tied to their rigid understanding of it and to the face value of the words and not the deeper meaning.
Scripture confirmed Jesus, but only when seen in light of the testimony of the Apostles and so we have two legs of the stool. The third is the Holy Spirit, who guides us to all truth.
This is why the Church is important and necessary.
The early fathers attest to Scripture, which in turn confirms them, but then the Holy Spirit is needed as guide to which Scripture and what theology of the early fathers, for we know that there were many “scriptures” not included in the final Canon of Scripture, and there were many writing of early Christians not accepted as truth.
Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Magisterium the three legs of Christ’s Church.
Whether you choose to admit it or not.
The quote from Augustine was chopped and formed from a long tract that said the exact opposite of what CB would like to claim.
Again, CB, as least do us the courtesy of not cutting and pasting things cobbled together. But, then if you did that, it would defeat the purpose wouldn’t it?
Then we don't need to find OSAS or sola Scriptura explicitly in Scripture and Catholic demands for a level of proof from non-Catholics for those *doctrines* that they don't even apply to themselves is hypocritical beyond belief.
Protestants like to pretend they know and follow Scripture, but they don’t even understand it’s purpose.
And Catholics do????? I think not. The average Catholic's knowledge of Scripture is abysmal at best. FRoman Catholics are not much further ahead. They hardly know Scripture. How can they imply that they understand its purpose when they don't even understand IT?
Just like Catholics do with Scripture.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Imagine that.
CB, not for a minute do I really think that you're doing that. But it does provide for pointing out the contrast and hypocrisy of the Catholic position when they do the exact same thing with Scripture that they condemn in us concerning the EFCs.
Well, either that, or:
B) Both scripture and St. Augustine support the real presence in the Holy Eucharist.
Occam says: B.
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.