Posted on 07/26/2014 4:41:46 AM PDT by michaelwlf3
I am coming up on my first year as an ordained minister in a continuing Anglican church, and I have noticed that participating on political forums (even when the topic is religious) I find that my opinions and postings more often than not generate more hatred than anything else. Among the things I often hear are that the laity are the real priests and that I am a Pharisee, that my vocation disqualifies me from offering an opinion on anything Christian because I am too narrow minded, and (my personal favorite) because I look too Catholic I must be a child molester.
Are these people really Christians?
Do you mean THIS Gospel?
“The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world. (53) The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying: How can this man give us his flesh to eat? (54) Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. (55) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, hath everlasting life; and I will raise him up in the last day. (56) For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. (57) He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in him. (58) As the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eats me the same also shall live by me. (59) This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eats this bread shall live forever.”
(61) Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard,’ and who can hear it? (62) But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you? (63) If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?.(64) It is the spirit that quickens: the flesh profits nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life. (65) But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that, would betray him. (66) And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father. (67) After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him. (68) Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies.
You need to check out some early church history. There was disagreement as to the meaning of this text.
I TEACH “Early Church History”.
Show me!
Taken out of context, again.
The context is settling disputes between believers, not giving absolute blanket authority to any one church or organization to dictate doctrine and salvation, giving it the alleged power to bind a person’s sins to them and send them to hell and to be used as a bludgeon to demand submission to it.
And still the Catholics insist it’s the flesh.
It’s one of the signs of a cult.
The flesh profits nothing. Eating Jesus doesn't do a thing.
It's the Spirit who gives life, not eating.
Plagiarist, you did not simply present Catholic teachings, or a reiteration or snippet, but pasted over 400 words directly from another source (http://www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CEPOPE.TXT) without any attribution, or otherwise presented any indication that they were your own.
This is not a matter of copyright violation and those of RF rules, as the CE is in public domain as far as i know, but it is clearly plagiarism.
But which is actually advised by at least one RC apologist.
Strawman after strawman!
He came to restore the Torah, and to fulfill the spring feasts.
He did both.
In his second coming, he will fulfill the Fall feasts.
You are truly cutting up the scriptures when you fail to observe the fulfillment of the entirety of Hosea. The people that he declared to be “not a people,” the house of Israel, are again his people. This is what Romans chapter 7 is all about. Those are the people to whom the apostles ministered. This is the fulfillment of the “Great Commission.”
You need to stop worrying about Luther, as he is of little significance, since he failed to reject Rome’s worst heresies.
Yeshua’s true followers simply slid into the background as Rome built the false pagan church that would foster all the rest of the false churches.
Who cares which one you pick?
They’re all Satan’s churches; Rome is the Whore, and the rest are her harlot daughters.
Yeshua’s congregation has no wealth, no buildings, no art treasures, nor anything else that is of this world.
Yeshua’s way is narrow, and few will find it.
.
An Airport Encounter (Archbishop Dolan on CBS Sunday 3/20)
Archdiocese of NY ^ | March 19, 2011
It was only the third time it had happened to me in my nearly thirty-five happy years as a priest, all three times over the last nine-and-a-half years.
Other priests tell me it has happened to them a lot more.
Three is enough. Each time has left me so shaken I was near nausea.
It happened last Friday . . .
I had just arrived at the Denver Airport, there to speak at their popular annual “Living Our Catholic Faith” conference.
As I was waiting with the others for the electronic train to take me to the terminal, a man, maybe in his mid-forties, waiting as well, came closer to me.
“Are you a Catholic priest?” he kindly asked.
“Sure am. Nice to meet you,” says I, as I offered my hand.
He ignored it. “I was raised a Catholic,” he replied, almost always a hint of a cut to come, but I was not prepared for the razor sharpness of the stiletto, as he went on, “and now, as a father of two boys, I can’t look at you or any other priest without thinking of a sexual abuser.”
What to respond? Yell at him? Cuss him out? Apologize? Deck him? Express understanding? I must admit all such reactions came to mind as I staggered with shame and anger from the damage of the wound he had inflicted with those stinging words.
“Well,” I recovered enough to remark, “I’m sure sorry you feel that way. But, let me ask you, do you automatically presume a sexual abuser when you see a Rabbi or Protestant minister?”
“Not at all,” he came back through gritted teeth as we both boarded the train.
“How about when you see a coach, or a boy scout leader, or a foster parent, or a counsellor, or physician?” I continued.
“Of course not!” he came back. “What’s all that got to do with it?”
“A lot,” I stayed with him, “because each of those professions have as high a percentage of sexual abuse, if not even higher, than that of priests.”
“Well, that may be,” he retorted. “But the Church is the only group that knew it was going on, did nothing about it, and kept transferring the perverts around.”
“You obviously never heard the stats on public school teachers,” I observed. “In my home town of New York City alone, experts say the rate of sexual abuse among public school teachers is ten times higher than that of priests, and these abusers just get transferred around.” (Had I known at that time the news in in last Sunday’s New York Times about the high rate of abuse of the most helpless in state supervised homes, with reported abusers simply transferred to another home, I would have mentioned that, too.)
To that he said nothing, so I went in for a further charge.
“Pardon me for being so blunt, but you sure were with me, so, let me ask: when you look at yourself in a mirror, do you see a sex abuser?”
Now he was as taken aback as I had been two-minutes before. “What the hell are you talking about?”
“Sadly,” I answered, “studies tell us that most children sexually abused are victims of their own fathers or other family members.”
Enough of the debate, I concluded, as I saw him dazed. So I tried to calm it down.
“So, I tell you what: when I look at you, I won’t see a sex abuser, and I would appreciate the same consideration from you.”
The train had arrived at baggage claim, and we both exited together.
“Well then, why do we only hear this garbage about you priests,” he inquired, as he got a bit more pensive.
“We priests wonder the same thing. I’ve got a few reasons if you’re interested.”
He nodded his head as we slowly walked to the carousel.
“For one,” I continued, “we priests deserve the more intense scrutiny, because people trust us more as we dare claim to represent God, so, when on of us do it – even if only a tiny minority of us ever have — it is more disgusting.”
“Two, I’m afraid there are many out there who have no love for the Church, and are itching to ruin us. This is the issue they love to endlessly scourge us with.”
“And, three, I hate to say it,” as I wrapped it up, “there’s a lot of money to be made in suing the Catholic Church, while it’s hardly worth suing any of the other groups I mentioned before.”
We both by then had our luggage, and headed for the door. He then put his hand out, the hand he had not extended five minutes earlier when I had put mine out to him. We shook.
“Thanks. Glad I met you.”
He halted a minute. “You know, I think of the great priests I knew when I was a kid. And now, because I work in IT at Regis University, I know some devoted Jesuits. Shouldn’t judge all you guys because of the horrible sins of a few.”
“Thanks!,” I smiled.
I guess things were patched-up, because, as he walked away, he added, “At least I owe you a joke: What happens when you can’t pay your exorcist?”
“Got me,” I answered.
“You get ‘re-possessed’!”
We both laughed and separated.
Notwithstanding the happy ending, I was still trembling . . . and almost felt like I needed an exorcism to expel my shattered soul, as I had to confront again the horror this whole mess has been to victims and their families, our Catholic people like the man I had just met . . . and to us priests.
Then I suppose your position is that Christ's crucifixion profited nothing?
Eating Jesus doesn't do a thing.
Is this an admission that Christ is Really, Truly, and Substantially present in the Eucharist, Body, Blood Soul & Divinity?
It's the Spirit who gives life, not eating.
Yes, and just as the Spirit of God gave life to Man, infused him with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, So God gave life to the Eucharist and commanded us to Eat.
Is that so? I don't see an attempt to take credit for another's work, which is one of the required elements for plagiarism.
Perhaps you owe Larry an apology
I’m well aware of the manipulation that has gone on, starting mostly with Eusebius adding verse 4 to John ch 6, and moving on from there.
But the real manipulation was when the NT writings were translated from Hebrew, to Aramaic, and then centuries later, to Greek.
It is abundantly obvious that the translators that gave us the Greek MS had no knowledge of the traditions that Yeshua and his apostles lived by, and had mostly used the LXX as a translation “Rosetta Stone” to achieve their wobbly texts’ translations. This process is what gave us the Koine style that all Greeks swear is not Greek, and barely understandable ‘babblefish’ gobledygook.
Trying to assume that the Greek mess was the original language is the source of much of the confusion we see today. This is why it can look like Paul contradicts himself from chapter to chapter in Romans. To the Greek translators, one Hebrew feast is the same as another, and so it was of no importance to correctly identify them in the texts.
They also constantly conflated Hebrews with Jews, not having the slightest realization that they are two separate halves of the original nation of Israel.
Prayer is the only way through any version of the NT that will bring understanding.
>> “For the Catholics they would like them to join the Church so the Church can tell them how to be sanctified.” <<
.
Do not forget contributing to the treasury, so that they can purchase more man made “treasures.”
.
Is this one of thos examples of utilizing the internet postings of other parties as evidential to confirming the assured veracity of one's own infallible conclusions?
Freud and his damned cigars!!!
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.