Posted on 12/14/2014 11:57:21 AM PST by ealgeone
The reason for this article is to determine if the worship/veneration given to Mary by the catholic church is justified from a Biblical perspective. This will be evaluated using the Biblical standard and not man’s standard.
I’m pretty sure he was saying you Catholic women shouldn’t be trying to correct those of us who are not Catholics. I’m pretty sure....:-0
Now that just wouldn't be right. All those lovely folks up there in up state New York who just love those change in seasons and cross country ski trips and all would be so disappointed.
My thoughts exactly! ;o)
Thank you, af vet 1981.
:)
.........................
"I don’t remember seeing a passage of Scripture ever that indicated the Lord’s Supper was celebrated without both elements of unleavened bread and wine."
"Again, you want a scriptural reference to practices that are determined not by the scripture but by the Church."
First, it was you explaining your eisogesis technique to determine what a passage means by what your church taught. That was your actual practice for determing what "the plain meaning of scripture" is...
Now, you explain that the Lord's Supper isn't about what Christ commanded believers to do, but what your denomination says believers should do.
"The Eucharist is celebrated, for sure, both with bread and the wine as both are consecrated and transubstantiate."
Keep insisting on it long enough, maybe you will see some actual, physical body parts or actual physical blood.
"However it is entirely possible to receive communion in one element alone."
And yet Christ never commanded this, nor allowed for it, nor did the Apostles in their practice.
"Some consider wine -- as in its physiological effect wine is still wine -- inappropriate for children, or for alcoholics;"
And yet, despite children being present in NT times, this was never practiced or described in the Holy Scriptures.
"some are intolerant to wheat, for wheat physiologically remains wheat."
Oh, my gosh!!! And God didn't think of this!!! Yet he commanded every believer to use bread and wine. Galactic oversight!!
"Also some churches simply do not have enough ministers of the Holy Communion to give both species, -- how do you propose a single priest to give both?"
Happens in our church every time. Not sure what the issue is elsewhere."I went to one church, Roman Rite, in Sacramento that was so crowded that the communion was given routinely only in bread, and the wine was consumed by the priest only."
That may explain bad behavior in the priestly class...
"The fact is, Paul mentions the Real Presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist in these verses."
He doesn't mention physical presence."Even if he mentions that in the middle of talking of something else, it is still evidence of his belief."
That has nothing to do with his argument in the paragraph - except to say that judging yourself worthy for such a participation requires judging your relationships with the body of believers."But, of course, to make a sacramental reference in the middle of ecclesiological discussion is entirely normal for a Catholic."
Yes. Ulmost uncontrollable.
"That a Protestant sees it as if it were out of context only demonstrates how remote Protestantism is from authentic Christianity taught by the apostles."
Good for a laugh.
"Christ did not build the Church on an island. He built it on the two elements most commonly found everywhere: bread and wine."
Too bad for Eskimos! Too bad for islanders! Too bad for prisoners in China! According to your argument, they are not part of the body of Christ.
"That some distant and unlikely circumstance can be imagined when those are not available does not alter what St. Paul taught in Corinth where finding bread and wine was not a problem. "
You've yet to approach what Paul taught... but your post was very funny and enlightening. For this I thank you. I laughed out loud, which is always a wonderful thing in human experience.
The HA are vets? And because of that they are killers?
So all vets are killers now because they served in the military and killed people and broke things?
odd that you defend that particularly violent motorcycle gang.
Sonny Barger didn't want the HA to do anything concerning security at the event.
Odd that you defend that particularly violent belief system that murdered and tortured a great many people. A great deal of them were Christians that were doing God's work. One was even burned at the stake for having the audacity of working to make it possible for everyone to read the Bible, which was not an option with Catholicism back in the day.
I don't know of any reports that the Hells's Angels burned anyone at the stake.
You've got the media talking points down pat, good job.
BTW, I'm in the movie, and hung out with Mick Jagger during the nite before the music died began.
Now back to Mary. Have there been any apparitions believed to be her at any music events?
There are a number of sites that do a good job explaining how we got the New Testament:
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
If there are exceptions; then it is NEVER 'necessary'!!!
Oh, she is not.
And neither are the other blessed who are in heaven.
The Papacy From 896 to 1048 AD
Even the Vatican's apologists acknowledge that the Papacy passed through a dark age from 896 to 1048; they describe the Papacy of the 900s as a"pornocracy," due to its domination by the Theophylacts, a corrupt family of Roman nobles. The Papal misdeeds of this era include: [2]
Boniface VI (896): Died after about 15 days in office — the second shortest Papal term of office in history. He was elected despite having been defrocked twice (once from the sub-diaconate, and once from the priesthood, and without being canonically reinstated to orders) by Pope John VIII for immorality. [3]
Stephen VI (896-897): Exhumed the corpse of Pope Formosus (891-896), tried the body for offenses against canon law in the "Cadaver Synod," and had the former Pope's body mutilated (the three fingers used for blessing were chopped off) and the remains tossed into the Tiber. This outraged the population to the point of insurrection. Stephen was deposed and strangled — and then buried in St. Peter's.
Sergius III (904-911): Jailed and strangled his predecessor Leo V (903), as well as the antipope Christopher who had overthrown Leo. Sergius reaffirmed the "Cadaver Synod" verdict against Pope Formosus, and bore an illegitimate son with the Theophylact noblewoman Marozia; the boy later became Pope John XI.
John X (914-928): In order to gain the release of the French King (Charles the Simple) from his imprisonment by Count Heribert of Aquitaine, John confirmed the election of the Count's five-year-old son as Archbishop of Rheims.
John XII (955-964): Elected at age 18, deposed for"perfidy and treason" in 963, overthrew his successor after a few months, and "died at age twenty-eight — of a stroke suffered while in the bed of a married woman."[4] A traditionalist historian says, " The Lateran Palace was called a brothel in his day, thanks to his diverse taste in lovers — both in terms of gender and number."[5] John "did not hesitate to consecrate as bishop a ten-year-old boy as token of his affection, or to give sacred vessels to prostitutes."[6]
John XIX (1024-1032): Won election through bribery.
Benedict IX (1032-1045): According to a traditionalist historian, "his personal life was so disgusting (filled as it was with mistresses and rumors of incest and sodomy) that one of the city's factions was able to rally support against him and drive Benedict out of Rome."[7] After he fought his way back to power, he soon"accepted a bribe to abdicate in favor of his godfather, the arch priest John Gratian. [8]
Gregory VI (1045-1046): John Gratian was deposed for having bought election to the Papacy.
The Papacy From 1455 to 1555 AD
The Papacy of 1455-1555 likewise earned infamy for its immorality.[9] As is obvious, various Papal decisions (those that apologists describe as "disciplinary acts") led directly to Protestant revolts in Germany and England. During this period, ancient paganism became respectable in the Vatican; Curial writing referred to"God the Father as 'Jupiter Optimus Maximus,' to the Virgin Mary as 'Diana,' to the Apostles as 'legates,' and to the bishops as 'proconsuls.'"[10]
Callistus III (1455-1458): Made two nephews cardinals, and made a third nephew the commander of the Papal army. One of these nephews, Rodrigo Borgia, was made cardinal-deacon at age 25, and became vice-chancellor of the Holy See at age 26. This posting — and the immense wealth that the young cardinal was able to gain from it — paved the way for Rodrigo's election as Pope Alexander VI in 1492.
Pius II (1458-1464): "known throughout Italy and beyond as a connoisseur, an historian, and the author of erotic plays and tales."[11] Pius II made two nephews cardinals; one of these — who got his red hat at age 21 — reigned for a month as Pius III (1503).
Paul II (1464-1471): According to a liberal historian, he was"among the worst of the Renaissance popes: a vain, intellectually shallow, ostentatious playboy." [12]
Sixtus IV (1471-1484): Named six nephews to the College of Cardinals; one of these would later become Pope Julius II. Sixtus' coronation tiara cost 100,000 ducats — and this was just the beginning of his extravagances. He "connived at the Pazzi conspiracy to murder Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici at High Mass at the Duomo in Florence."[13] Giuliano died, but Lorenzo survived, and Florence rose against the Pope's allies. In response," the pope placed Florence under interdict, and a two years' war with the city began."[14]
Innocent VIII (1484-1492): Won election by bribery, and created a plethora of unnecessary new posts in the Curia, auctioning them to the highest bidder to raise money. In 1489, he struck a deal with the Turkish Sultan. The Pope detained the Sultan Bayezit's fugitive (and rival) brother in Rome, and the Sultan gave the Pope an initial payment "almost equal to the total annual revenue of the papal state," [15] plus an annual fee of 45,000 gold ducats, plus the relic of the Holy Lance, which supposedly pierced the side of Christ on the Cross. Innocent VIII made Giovanni Medici a cardinal at age 13; the young man was later elected as Pope Leo X.
Alexander VI (1492-1503): The father of "at least nine illegitimate children," [16] he won his election by "generous bribes and promises of lucrative appointments and benefices," and soon made clear that "the consuming passions of his pontificate would be gold, women, and the interests of his family. He named his son Cesare, at age eighteen, a cardinal, along with the brother of the current papal mistress. He also arranged several marriages for his daughter Lucrezia and often left her in charge of the papacy, as virtual regent, when he was away from Rome."[17] The aforementioned papal mistress was Giulia Farnese, wife of Orsino Orsini; Romans referred to her sarcastically as" the bride of Christ."[18]
Julius II (1503-1513): The nephew of Sixtus IV, and made cardinal by him at age 18. While a cardinal, he sired three daughters. With the aid of "substantial bribes and promises of ecclesiastical preferments," he won unanimous election to the Papacy in a one-day conclave.[19] Julius donned silver armor and led his armies across Italy to expand the Papal States. He gave Henry VIII, the King of England, a dispensation to marry his brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon. (The dispensation soon backfired. When Henry sought an annulment from his marriage to Catherine, Pope Clement VII refused. This led to the Anglican schism of 1534.) Julius laid the cornerstone of the new Basilica of St. Peter in 1506 — but made the fateful decision to cover the construction costs by selling indulgences. In the bull Cumtam divino, he also declared Papal elections invalid if gained through simony — an ironic ruling, given the circumstances of his own election.
Ironically, the sainted Pope Pius X reversed this decree. In the 1904 decree Vacante Sede Apostolica, Pius condemned simony, but held that this would not invalidate a Papal election. His successors did the same. John Paul II ruled in 1996 that "If — God forbid — in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal provision, in order that — as was already established by my Predecessors — the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may not for this reason be challenged."[20]
Leo X (1513-1521): Upon his election, he said, "God has given us the papacy; now let us enjoy it."[21] He continued the sale of indulgences to finance construction of St. Peter's. It was the marketing of this "spiritual benefit" by the Dominican preacher John Tetzel that caused Luther to post the "95 Theses" on the cathedral door at Wittenberg in 1517, starting the Reformation. King Henry VIII publicly opposed Luther and wrote In Defense of the Seven Sacraments; as a reward for this book, Leo gave the English King the title of "Defender of the Faith"— a title that the English royalty have continued using ever since, despite their schism from Rome. One of Leo's cardinals was his nephew, Giulio de' Medici, who was later elected as Clement VII (1523-1534).
Paul III (1534-1549): While serving as a cardinal, he had kept a mistress, by whom he had four children. Upon his election, the first two cardinals he chose were his teenage grandsons. Paul "was an ardent believer in astrology, timing consistories, audiences, even the issue of bulls, according to the most auspicious arrangement of the stars."[22]
Julius III (1550-1555): "created a scandal because of his infatuation with a fifteen-year-old boy whom he picked up in the streets of Parma, had his brother adopt, and then made a cardinal and head of the Secretariat of State."[23] Another biographer describes this youth, Fabiano (who took the name of Innocenzo del Monte), as a "depraved ... custodian of monkeys," [24] and a Roman satirist of the time described Fabiano as an "empty and feminine boy."[25] Fabiano fell from grace after Julius III died. Pius IV jailed Fabiano for killing two people at a banquet, and exiled him after his release from prison; then, Pius V removed Fabiano's red hat.
This is about women who claim to be Christians, and purport to believe in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, but deny it by their behavior when trying to teach believing men doctrine, which the Apostle to the Gentiles expressly forbids. Women refuse to identify the denomination, sect, faith group, or cult who they represent and who is supposedly sponsoring their teaching are so clearly at odds with 1 Timothy as they set themselves up as teachers over men.
Some of the Wandering Catholics objected because I do not rebuke Catholic women who teach here, whom I took to mean yourself. They consider it hypocrisy. I, however, hold Catholic women to a different standard, because they live under a different standard, that of subjection to the authority of the holy catholic apostolic Church, which is the standard to which I hold Catholics. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a ready resource to weigh what a Catholic teaches. These supposed adherents of Sola Scriptura, which is not biblically sanctioned, so clearly abandon it for modern feminist trends and errors, not unlike the first Eve.
I read Evidence that demands a verdict and more evidence that demands a verdict, written by Josh McDowell. He originally set out to disprove the Bible and Christianity, and wound up becoming a believer. After researching it, he became convinced that the evidence in favor of the Bible was overwhelming and he dared not let eternal life slip away from him.
placemarker
And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him.I buried my older brother many years ago. It struck me how absolute was his quietude and stillness. If he had lived again while we watched, we would have published the news everywhere and it would never have been forgotten. If one so significant as Mary the mother of Jesus had passed and then been raised in so spectacular a manner as the apocryphal stories tell, and in the presence of the apostles themselves, as I have heard the story, then why the long silence, the story not surfacing until at the earliest the third century, and even then only starting in a small trickle, and not until much later gaining in popularity?
(Luke 20:34-38)
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:If it is wrong to cal them dead, who are certain to be raised, then Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ has falsely called them dead, and the doctrine of inspiration is broken. But Paul is not wrong. That God is God of the Living is prospective, it looks forward to the resurrection. It does not pretend that death is not real now, while we wait, as all believers must, for the resurrection call.
(1 Thessalonians 4:16)
No problem. I think Mitch would agree with me, but he can post for himself. I have to admit, I was shocked when I saw the first post, trying to shut you up, and I can't even remember for sure who wrote it. When you are telling it like it is, no one can tell you to cease and desist. That dog don't hunt, as they say. I have seen some wonderful lady Sunday school teachers, and I respected them as I respect you and Metmom. I have a feeling that men like Elsie, Cynicalbear, imardmd1, amoreperfectunion, ealgeone and others feel the same way. We've got your 6. 😄
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church."1 Timothy 2:12
"I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent."
But since they evidently don't feel themselves bound to just ask their husbands at home when they desire to learn something, they are probably operating on the basis of some hermeneutic tradition shaped by their denomination's history, perhaps unacknowledged.
I could be they don't tell us their ecclesial affiliation, because they think their church actually couldn't bear much scrutiny. If that's the case, I really don't blame them for keeping it under wraps.
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.