Posted on 12/08/2012 2:24:39 PM PST by NYer
Do Catholics worship Mary? This question is as old as the Protestant Reformation itself, and it rests, like other disputed doctrinal points, on a false premise that has been turned into a wedge: the veneration of Mary detracts from the worship of Christ.
This seeming opposition between Mary and Christ is symptomatic of the Protestant tendency, begun by Luther, to view the entirety of Christian life through a dialectical lens – a lens of conflict and division. With the Reformation the integrity of Christianity is broken and its formerly coherent elements are now set in opposition. The Gospel versus the Law. Faith versus Works. Scripture versus Tradition. Authority versus Individuality. Faith versus Reason. Christ versus Mary.
The Catholic tradition rightly sees the mutual complementarity of these elements of the faith, as they all contribute to our ultimate end – living with God now and in eternity. To choose any one of these is to choose them all.
By contrast, to assert that Catholics worship Mary along with or in place of Christ, or that praying to Mary somehow impedes Christ’s role as “the one mediator between God and men” (1 Tim 2:5) is to create a false dichotomy between the Word made flesh and the woman who gave the Word his flesh. No such opposition exists. The one Mediator entrusted his mediation to the will and womb of Mary. She does not impede his mediation – she helps to make it possible.
Within this context we see the ancillary role that the ancilla Domini plays in her divine Son’s mission. Mary’s is not a surrogate womb rented and then forgotten in God’s plan. She is physically connected to Christ and his life, and because of this she is even more deeply connected to him in the order of grace. She is, in fact, “full of grace,” as only one who is redeemed by Christ could be.
The feast of Mary’s Immaculate Conception celebrates the very first act of salvation by Christ in the world. Redemption is made possible for all by his precious blood shed on the cross. Yet Mary’s role in the Savior’s life and mission is so critical and so unique that God saw it necessary to wash her in the blood of the Lamb in advance, at the first moment of her conception.
This reality could not be more Biblical: the angel greets Mary as “full of grace” (Luke 1:28), which is literally rendered as “already graced” (kecharitōmenē). Following Mary, the Church has “pondered what sort of greeting this might be” for centuries. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception, ultimately defined in 1854, is nothing other than a rational expression of the angel’s greeting contained in Scripture: Mary is “already graced” with Christ’s redemption at the very moment of her creation.
Because God called Mary to the unique vocation of serving as the Mother of God, it is not just her soul that is graced, as is the case for us when we receive the sacraments. Mary’s entire being, body and soul, is full of grace so that she may be a worthy ark for the New Covenant. And just as the ark of the old covenant was adorned with gold to be a worthy house for God’s word, Mary is conceived without original sin to be the living and holy house for God’s Word.
Thus Mary is not only conceived immaculately, that is, without stain of sin. She also is the Immaculate Conception. Her entire being was specifically created by God with unique privilege so that she could fulfill her role in God’s plan of salvation. “Free from sin,” both original and personal, is the necessary consequence of being “full of grace.”
Protestants claim that veneration of Mary as it is practiced by Catholics is not biblical. St. Paul encouraged the Corinthians to “be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (1 Cor 11:1). Paul is not holding himself up as the end goal, but as a means to Christ, the true end. And if a person is imitated, he is simultaneously venerated.
If we should imitate Paul, how much more should we imitate Mary, who fulfilled God’s will to the greatest degree a human being could. Throughout her life she humbled herself so that God could be exalted, and because of this, Christ has fulfilled his promise by exalting his lowly mother to the seat closest to him in God’s kingdom.
Mary is the model of humility, charity, and openness to the will of God. She allows a sword to pierce her heart for the sake of the world’s salvation. She shows us the greatness to which we are called: a life free from sin and filled with God’s grace that leads to union with God in Heaven. She is the model disciple, and therefore worthy of imitation and veneration, not as an end in herself, but as the means to the very purpose of her – and our – existence: Christ himself.
God’s lowly handmaiden would not want it any other way.
He does indeed answers the prayer He makes in believers , and thank God we have direct access within the vail (no secretaries), but i appreciate your heart. I have often thought of you in the light of certain other replies.
Now just how long have you been lurking and taking notes?:)
WJ-””From the CatholicsUnited website:””
From the Catholic League
http://www.catholicleague.org/democrats-push-phony-catholic-group/
“Catholics United is nothing but a George Soros-funded anti-Catholic front group. As we have previously reported, Soros’ Open Society Institute has poured a ton of money into Catholics United.....Archbishop Charles Chaput spoke for many bishops when he said that Catholics United was doing a “disservice to the Church.” In 2010 and 2011, it worked against the bishops by supporting abortion coverage in the Obama healthcare bill. It also supported efforts to censor the free speech rights of the Susan B. Anthony List in 2010 which had posted a pro-life billboard in Ohio”
Dear, WK, it’s a waste of time to post from groups like “Catholics United” that we don’t recognize the teaching of The Catholic Church
You are simply repeating the same polemic that that vows made under Rome are binding, which rests upon the premise rejected by us that she is supreme and that they were regenerated at the time and that such vows are binding.
As for the SSPX, perhaps you lean thereto and i should have made a distinction with the SVs, but while the term “schismatic” is avoided , it seems they are “irregular” and their status is often debated among RCs, even here, though some progress seems to have been made. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=187118
But i can say one priest has the gift of poetry in describing the conflict:
The following dialogue is purportedly written by Bishop Williamson. I have no idea if that is true. But whatever of that, it is an informative exposition of the debate within the SSPX.
SL = SSPX soft-liner. HL = SSPX hard-liner.
SL Outside the Church is not where we should be!
HL Who left the Church? Vatican II! Not we!
SL Once in the Church, we could do so much more!
HL If we detested error, as before.
SL Why should we stop detesting error, pray?
HL Because we would be joining in their fray.
SL We need to live within the Church’s law.
HL Not if it is not serving God any more.
SL The Catholic Church is visible. We’re not there.
HL The Church is holy. Do we see that? Where?
SL But things have changed since the Archbishop’s day.
HL The modernists still hold exclusive sway.
SL What Rome now offers, he would have approved.
HL Never, once Benedict to Assisi moved!
SL The SSPX stands strong, need fear no fall.
HL Let all who stand fear falling, says St. Paul.
SL But our Superiors have grace of state.
HL Did leading churchmen never prevaricate?
SL Our leaders to the SSPX belong!
HL And does that mean they never can do wrong?
SL But, Pre-condition One, Rome freed the Mass.
HL And left in place the “bastard rite”, so crass.
SL Rome also lifted the ban on bishops four.
HL But did that make them more free than before?
SL Yet Benedict is calling for our aid.
HL To make Truth prosper, or to help it fade?
SL Of harming Truth, how can the Pope be accused?
HL His modernist mind is hopelessly confused.
SL Yet truly, Benedict wants us all back in.
HL As a modernist, yes, but modernism is a sin.
SL Then do you still believe that he is Pope?
HL Yes, but we must for his conversion hope.
SL What can you mean by, “As a modernist, yes”?
HL Our true Faith he can only harm, not bless.
SL Our welfare is his genuine concern.
HL Not our true welfare, if our true Faith he spurn.
SL A lack of supernatural spirit you show!
HL If woe I say there is, where there is woe?
SL Not everything in the Church is gloomy, dark!
HL Where do you see of true revival a spark?
SL A movement towards Tradition is under way!
HL While fully in control the modernists stay?
SL Then is the official Church still God’s own Church?
HL Yes, it’s the churchmen left us in the lurch.
SL But surely Pope and Rome have both meant well.
HL So? – “Good intentions pave the way to Hell.”
SL But evils worse that Vatican Two can be.
HL The Archbishop – remember? – called it World War III.
SL You’re harsh. Your attitude to schism will lead.
HL Better than undermine the entire creed!
SL Not all the Church authorities are bad.
HL The good ones have no power. It’s very sad.
SL Priests should not say, authority is untrue.
HL But bishops were the cause of Vatican II!
SL Still, Catholic instincts seek their Catholic home.
HL Today, for Catholics, that’s no longer Rome.
SL Then where is the Church? Just in Tradition? Where?
HL “One, holy, catholic, apostolic” – there.
SL You want to solve this problem overnight!
HL No, just that a start be made to set it right.
SL We trust in God. We trust in his Sacred Heart.
HL Bravo! But humans too must play their part.
SL That part is not for us just to complain.
HL Tradcats work hard, Tradition to maintain.
SL If we went in with Rome, we could turn back.
HL No. More and more we’d follow in Rome’s track.
SL Why stop the Romans making restitution?
HL Because they’re set upon our destitution.
SL Back in the mainstream Church we’d set to work!
HL Rather we’d lose our way in all their murk.
SL But we are strong, with bishops one and three.
HL Alas, the three with the one do not agree.
SL We’re firm in the Faith. Modernists are no threat!
HL We’d easily slide. You want to take a bet?
SL Strong in the Faith, we can afford to agree!
HL But that Faith says, from heretics to flee.
SL But Gott mit uns! We are the SSPX!
HL Not if we choose to ignore all prudent checks.
SL Were we approved, Romans would learn from us!
HL O Heavens, no! They’d throw us under the bus.
SL Were we approved, the earth of Rome could quake.
HL But not before to pieces we would shake.
SL Our leader has graces of state. We must obey.
HL Was Paul the Sixth given graces to betray?
SL Rome is now weak, meaning, we could stay strong.
HL For right, Rome’s feeble. Mighty it is for wrong.
SL So what’s the answer, if you’re always right?
How can the Church be rescued from its plight?
HL The Church belongs to God. In his good time
We’ll see his answer, stunning and sublime.
Till then we grieve, and thirst for right, and trust.
That which we cannot cure, endure we must.
From error and the erring stay away,
Even while for their immortal souls we pray.
And tell God’s truth, however few will hear –
As close as the nearest door, his help is near.
Posted by Fr John on May 11, 2012 in Culture, Current affairs, Liturgy | 23 comments www.boacp.com/tag/sspx/
Well, liberal Protestants as just as Protestant as you are. I haven't read from, nor met, an Episcopalian, or a Methodist who would not ardently defend Sola Scriptura and then proceed with it wherever his proclivities lead him.
Your are necessarily playing loose with the terms as i described them, while Rome is the greatest example of being able answerable to no one and so proceeding wherever she wills, as enabled, even if infallibly defining herself by self declaration so as to deny such a charge.
More on that later, but I doubt you have ever met many or any Episcopalians or Methodists who would “ardently defend Sola Scriptura” with Scripture being that it is to be basically taken literally — which again approved RC scholarship very often rejects — as the wholly inspired Word of God, as per the prevailing historical Scriptural position i referred to.
For rather than simply claiming Scripture as one's authority, the use of SS is not simply referring to Scripture as being supreme or as the only source that can be used, which RCs often wrongly assume, as what Scripture and Reformers evidence is that of holding Scripture as the literal word of God and a tradition of basically literal exegesis as seen therein, with the transcendence of the moral law, etc, unlike the liberal revisionists. And as their liberal, historically non evangelical, non Protestant views on Scripture are concomitant with doctrinal laxity and liberal doctrinal and moral views, then most significantly this is seen in views on homosexuality.
Such liberalism in clearly in contrast to the historical exegesis, and thus the classic commentators as men such as Matthew Henry, John Gill, Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David Brown, A.T. Robertson, Adam Clarke, and preachers like as Spurgeon, Moody,Wesley, etc. historically predominate.
The truth is that we both follow “tradition,” and which we see our respective counterparts overall rejecting, but the difference is that for fundamental, evangelical type Prots, tradition is a Scriptural one, in which Scriptural substantiation in word and in power is necessary, (Mt. 22; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 17:11; 1Cor. 4:20) which results in manifest regeneration traditional morality, and which distinguishes them even to the media as a basically separate class (and those therein can denominationally choose to be so). And the church must continually manifest it is that of the living God by so doing, "Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. " (Jude 21-23)
This means of establishment leaves the church more vulnerable but more dependent on the power of God than self assertion and historical descent in maintaining institutional form over substance.
For Rome the appeal to authority is effectively to herself, and which can be justify using the sword of men (which early Prots had to unlearn to truly grow) against theological dissenters, however sincere, or the “living magisterium” can manifest an interpretation of Scripture that renders historical accounts as fables and that liberal RCs as members in life and in death. And which results in her own schisms, each claiming to be the true apostolic church.
You both lack the patristic authority of the Early Fathers.
What we “lack” is the claim that they mean whatever we say they mean (and Rome teaches that it judges them more than they judge the church), and that they are determinative as to what is truth, as they neither claimed supremacy nor exampled superior exegesis or comprehensive unity. (And writings from all the “fathers, which list can vary, is not considered to be relatively small.) However, contrary to what is often charged, the Reformers did not neglect history and the CFs, but as in Scripture, these are judged by Scripture in accordance with exegesis seen therein.
Alister McGrath's [a primary Reformed theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist] writes,
Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. —The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
THE SECOND HELVETIC CONFESSION - Page 2
Interpretations of the Holy Fathers. Wherefore we do not despise the interpretations of the holy Greek and Latin fathers, nor reject their disputations and treatises concerning sacred matters as far as they agree with the Scriptures; but we modestly dissent from them when they are found to set down things differing from, or altogether contrary to, the Scriptures. Neither do we think that we do them any wrong in this matter; seeing that they all, with one consent, will not have their writings equated with the canonical Scriptures, but command us to prove how far they agree or disagree with them, and to accept what is in agreement and to reject what is in disagreement.
This consideration of CFs was even manifest by no less a Roman scholar than Manning, as when when faced with opposition, he invoked the autocratic claims of Rome to define itself so as to exclude the possibility of valid reproof:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...
I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
Protestantism is by definition liberal, because Sola Scriptura is a liberal doctrine, leaving the Hoyl Scripture at the mercy of the individual reading it.
Read, Catholicism is by definition liberal, because Sola Ecclesia is a liberal doctrine [as in the liberal elite assumed unwarranted autocratic power], leaving the Holy Scripture, Tradition and history at the mercy of a self proclaimed infallible church which can “infallibly” define what it will so as to exclude dissent. It may claim support from Scripture etc, yet this is interpretation and which is made doctrine under the premise that according to her interpretation, only her interpretation can be right in any conflict.
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?" —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
Of course, in practice there is much room for disagreement partly due to lack of magisterial perspicuity or detail, while much dissent is implicitly allowed.
When Catholics do something like that, they go against the grain of the Catholic culture, and it is the Reformation that enabled them and gave them rhetorical tools.
“The grain of the Catholic culture” is itself manifestly changeable, and is now overall liberal itself, while your mandate to malign the needed Reformation leaves you blind to the implications of your premise. If the Reformation is to be blamed for Catholic liberalism (quite inventive) because it contended against Rome on the basis of Scripture against an entity which claimed stewardship of Scripture and the office of teacher as the inheritor of Divine promises, then your logic indicts the Lord Himself and the church, which began in dissent from such.
The fact is that Scripture, miracles, the name of God etc, can all be abused, but abuse of a means does not negate it. And although Protestantism can be liberal, such as by adopting a Roman “modern” view of Scripture, and can be like the majority of RCs in distinction to those who treat Scripture as the literal Word of God and its exegesis, this does not negate the Scriptural means of establishing Truth but instead is supports it by the distinction between liberals and fundamental type Prots.
And instead of the Reformation being blamed for Catholic liberalism, it is Rome herself that fosters such by approving liberal teaching and failing to effectively discipline liberal RCs, and which again, makes a majority of those whom she treats as members in life and in death. Regardless of what can be quoted as official (and the liberals also argue on that level, while the SSPX and sedevacantists argue against the pope as being liberal), Catholics look for its meaning by how the leaders apply it, and in which liberalism is implicitly sanctioned, from relegating the miraculous stories such as Jonah, Balaam etc to fables, to allowing impenitent liberal politicians to be treating as members, and even getting special treatment (masses in their own house, etc. by friendly priests).
Danie1212: The fact that Rome now forbids torture, and uphold religious freedom and free access to the Bible, and other things in contrast to the past,..
Annalex: One should distinguish development of practice from development of dogma.
And here we have exampled the result of leaving the Holy Scriptures at the mercy of the Roman Church reading it, who can justify being like the world until the world no longer furnishes these means for her, and then she can later hypocritically condemn “her children” for using such means when popes themselves sanctioned them. For it is under the very premise of Development of Doctrine (partly due to lack of “unanimous consent” of the fathers, while making good use of forgeries) that the use of torture and death against theological objectors is justified, as this is far from the discipline of the NT church, which was by supernatural means (1Cor. 5:4; 2Cor. 13:10; 1Tim. 1:20) and disfellowship, (1Cor. 5:11,13; 2Th 3:6,14,15) not by employing the civil government and its means. (1Cor. 5:12; 2Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) And which is in addition to other things Rome makes into doctrines, even though her cousins reject some of them on the same basis of Tradition that she invokes for support.
In conclusion, anything can be abused, but your arguments are essentially those of the men who rejected the Lord Jesus, though Rome does not even have the particular Scriptural affirmation they had, yet as said, the church was established in dissent from those who could claim historical descent and the promises and stewardship of the oracles of God, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6). But as the church is of the living God thus it was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
And while we come short in the degree seen in Acts, the gospel, is the power of God unto salvation, and you would not see such contention as is here if the Roman Catholic gospel was effecting the manifest regeneration that the multitudes of former Catholics have found through believing the preaching of the basic historical evangelical and Scriptural gospel, which works to leave souls as contrite damned damned and destitute sinners who need conversion, as not being regenerated by paedobaptism, or trusting somewhat in the merit of their works or church, but by casting all their faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. And who thus are baptized and follow Him and repent when they are convicted of not doing so.
And by which this relative remnant has its members (though in decline in these latter days) and common evangelical fellowship that transcends denominations, and is overall greater than their differences, while dividing them from those who have not realized that salvation and seek to walk accordingly. I myself was born again in my mid 20's while still a Roman Catholic, though being raised as devout, and the difference was profound, but which very very few other RCs shared or cared about. Instead, besides the typical liberalism and spiritual apathy, what we see is constant promotion of a church that overall manifests the dead religion we came out of.
Finally, you have been told these things before as you repeat the same invalid polemics and myopic vision, so i suspect that perhaps your purpose is to use up our time.
I also noticed the words “the Catholic use of the word saint”. Isn’t it interesting that scripture calls any true believer a saint and explains in detail how each true believer is already perfected in that sainthood? Catholics once again deny what scripture clearly teaches.
What about all the RC's that voted for Zero?What about the calls for "social justice" from your supreme leader in Rome?
I don't waste my time when posting about these folk. They represent the majority of RC's evidently. The truth will always win, and it is deceptive to try and thwart it! Of course, that is to be expected from adherents to the heretics in Rome.
There are lots more RC supporters of sin, which I can mention. (Soros is Jewish, isn't he?).!
According to a report released by Equally Blessed, a Catholic coalition dedicated to fighting for civil marriage equality for LGBT Americans, the fraternal organization and its affiliated insurance company spent more than $6.25 million opposing civil same-sex marriage since 2005. This includes more than $600,000 spent in the last election cycle in Maine, Maryland, Minnesota and Washington.
Reuters/Ipsos exit polling found that 51 percent of Catholics favored President Barack Obama, compared with 48 percent for Republican contender Mitt Romney. A report by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life had a similar finding, with 50 percent of Catholics for Obama and 48 percent for Romney, the same as the popular vote in the general population.
Hispanic Catholics were far more likely to favor Obama - by 76 percent to 23 percent - than white Catholics, who favored Romney by 56 percent to 43 percent, according to the Reuters poll. Black Protestants favored Obama by 97 percent to 3 percent, while white Protestants favored Romney by 69 percent compared to 29 percent for Obama.
Yep
LOL
We KNOW they are false because they do not point us to Christ, they point us to a false god..
Greek definition of wonders...
wonders=teras
1) a prodigy, portent
2) miracle: performed by any one
Wish we had a “like “ button
Wish we had a “like “ button
Define “false”. Indeed those who represent Satan did, do, and will do what are described as miracles.
*The halo, aureola, or nimbus was developed from the Hellenic convention of placing a sunburst crown on the statues of deities - as with the spiked crown of the Statue of Liberty.
**The Source by James A. Michener, Random House, 1965, p. 205
When AAron crafted the golden calf, he and the people believed that the calf represented the God of israel, they did not view it as crafting a false god..... they believed they were worshipping their God...
Yes, believers are all referred to as saints, as they are sanctified in Christ, as “we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ” offered once for all, and “by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” that being their positional status, but (i may preach to the choir) the practical development of that sanctification is progressive.
Thus Paul’s words in Phil. 3, which, after expressing that to depart was to be with Christ, (Phil. 1:23; cf. 2Cor. 5:8) he went on to express (Phil. 3:9) that (in response) he yet sought the full working of faith righteousness (which justifies the UnGodly so they may be justified by faith, but also become practically Godly: Rm. 4:5; 8:4; cf. Heb. 5:9) , and thus he strove to be made fully conformable unto Christ’s death, and had not already attained unto the resurrected state in which Christ has subdued all things unto himself (see v. 21) “already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.”
Thus, “I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. “ (Philippians 3:14-15)
“For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. “ (Philippians 3:20-21)
Under the New Cov, believers are gifted with what they could not attain under the conditions of the holy just and good Law, as they fell short of its righteousness requirements. (Rm. 3:9-20; Gal. 3:10) But by faith in Jesus Christ the righteous they are accepted in the Beloved and made to sit in heavenly places, with all things essentially being made new, (2Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:6; 2:6) as washed justified and sanctified regenerated saints, (1Cor. 6:11) which thus inspires and enables them to live accordingly. (Col. 3)
And reformers clearly taught that while it is precisely God-given faith which appropriates justification of heart, the kind of faith that is salvific is one that effects obedience towards its Object, the Lord Jesus, thru the Spirit, justifying that one has true faith. (Rm. 2:13; 8:4; 10:9,10) - http://peacebyjesus.tripod.com/reformation_faith_works.html And “which hath great recompense of reward.” (Heb. 10:35) To His glory.
I just resumed skating on the edge of this abyss when Natural Law pinged me courteously because he referred to something I posted a while back. That was two or three days ago maybe.
I just happened to have read that a couple of hours before I read your post.
They couldn’t worship without some type of imagery but God condemned them. I wonder how many times in these threads the comment has been made by Catholics that the statues, pictures, and engravings only “represent”? Yet they vehemently deny and similarity to what the Israelites did that God condemned as idolatry.
How do you explain those who simply choose a different medium as the focus of their worship? What is more special about the printed word than paintings, tapestry, sculpture or music?
We are very frequently subjected to those who revere a book like some totem, crying outrage if someone fails to capitalize the "B", all the while projecting the worst of Calvinist iconoclasm towards Catholics.
Peace be with you
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.