Posted on 04/10/2017 6:40:46 PM PDT by fishtank
Evangelical Apologist Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy
Posted by: Rob Bowman
On Palm Sunday, April 9, 2017, Hank Hanegraaff formally joined the Orthodox Church. Since 1989 Hanegraaff has been the President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and (since ca. 1992) the host of CRI’s Bible Answer Man radio program.[1] Hank, his wife Kathy, and two of their twelve children were inducted by a sacramental rite called chrismation into the Orthodox faith at St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, near where CRI is based. In chrismation, a baptized individual is anointed with oil in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[2]
(Excerpt) Read more at religiousresearcher.org ...
Respectfully, your first move would be to look at the actual texts of the actual Mass.
Your second move would be to check the Catechism, which is online in several places and searchable by keyword. I would say not to scan it superficially for short pull-quotes, but read receptively by paragraphs and sections.
The third --- if you're willing to invest the time and thought --- is to read a real expert on liturgy, such as:...
Are not the words of an ordained Roman Catholic priest based upon all you just noted?
But we have this from the baltimore catechism
358. What is a sacrifice?
A sacrifice is the offering of a victim by a priest to God alone, and the destruction of it in some way to acknowledge that He is the Creator of all things.
360. Why is the Mass the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross?
The Mass is the same sacrifice as the sacrifice of the cross because in the Mass the victim is the same, and the principal priest is the same, Jesus Christ.
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson27.html
Sure sounds like O'Brien is right...if it's the same sacrifice the Victim, as the RCC calls Christ, has to be on the cross again...and again...and again...at each and every Mass.
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson27.html
Louis de Montfort is the other Catholic priest I was thinking about regarding Mary.
He is quoted as having written the following:
48. 3. We must never go to our Lord except through Mary, using her intercession and good standing with him. We must never be without her when praying to Jesus.
49. 4. We must perform all our actions for Mary, which means that as slaves of this noble Queen we will work only for her, promoting her interests and her high renown, and making this the first aim in all our acts, while the glory of God will always be our final end. In everything we must renounce self- love because more often than not, without our being aware of it, selfishness sets itself up as the end of all we work for. We should often repeat from the depths of our heart: "Dear Mother, it is to please you that I go here or there, that I do this or that, that I suffer this pain or this injury."
50. Beware, chosen soul, of thinking that it is more perfect to direct your work and intention straight to Jesus or straight to God. Without Mary, your work and your intention will be of little value. But if you go to God through Mary, your work will become Mary's work, and consequently will be most noble and most worthy of God.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/SECRET.HTM
Like O'Brien, this isn't some run of the mill RCC priest.
Montfort was known in his time as a preacher and was made a missionary apostolic by Pope Clement XI.
As well as preaching, Montfort found time to write a number of books which went on to become classic Catholic titles and influenced several popes. Montfort is known for his particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and the practice of praying the Rosary.
Montfort is considered as one of the early writers in the field of Mariology. His most notable works regarding Marian devotions are contained in The Secret of Mary and the True Devotion to Mary.
The Roman Catholic Church, under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII canonized Montfort on July 20, 1947.
Louis de Montfort influenced a number of popes.[13][14] In the 19th century, Pope Pius IX considered it the best and most acceptable form of Marian devotion, while Pope Leo XIII granted indulgences for practicing Montfort's method of Marian consecration. Leo beatified Montfort in 1888, selecting for Montfort's beatification the day of his own Golden Jubilee as a priest.
In the 20th century Pope Saint Pius X acknowledged the influence of Montfort's writings in the composition of his encyclical Ad diem illum.[15]
Pope Pius XI stated that he had practiced Montfort's devotional methods since his early youth. Pope Pius XII declared Montfort a saint and stated that Montfort is the guide "who leads you to Mary and from Mary to Jesus."
Pope Saint John Paul II once recalled how as a young seminarian he "read and reread many times and with great spiritual profit" a work of de Montfort and that: "Then I understood that I could not exclude the Lord's Mother from my life without neglecting the will of God-Trinity."[16] According to his Apostolic Letter Rosarium Virginis Mariae, the pontiff's personal motto was "Totus Tuus." The thoughts, writings, and example of St. Louis de Montfort were also singled out by Pope John Paul II's encyclical Redemptoris Mater as a distinctive witness of Marian spirituality in the Roman Catholic tradition.[17]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Montfort#Works
Try as you might, these two men and their works have never been rejected by the Roman Catholic Church.
If their writings are in error or exaggerations, it is incumbent upon the Vatican to issue a correction. I am unable to find any rejection of their writings.
A similar thing can be said about intercessory prayer, whether we are asking for the intercessions of the saints on earth or in heaven. Why would you ask for prayers from, say, your pastor or your mother? Is it because God won't listen to yours? Or has listened but refused your requests? Or is it because you believe, with St. James, that we should ...
"...pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective."
I bolded pray for each other as that is the key to understanding this verse.
It does not say pray to each other or to those who've departed this earth.
James is telling the believers, the ones living on earth, to pray for each other.
All prayer in the Bible is directed to God. It is never directed "to" a created being.
Oil was used in the Bible for anointing of priests, prophets and kings — also for the Messiah. Throughout the the ancient world it signified beauty, strength, health, wealth, honor, blessing and nobility. It was an important item in all sorts of ceremonial and health practices, and was a key item in international trade.
This multivalent significance made it entirely appropriate for the use of the Christian Church.
Blessed oil is not “necessary” for the reception of the Holy Spirit, since “the Spirit bloweth where it listeth”. However, in Sacramental use the blessed oil effects what it signifies. If the person is inwardly disposed to receive Our Lord the Holy Spirit and His gifts and fruits, he receives them. If not, not.
As in any Sacrament, it always requires a humble, willing soul.
We should pray daily for the Holy Spirit and His gifts. May He bless you, my friend.
.
What do you think is “blessed oil?”
It is never mentioned in any scripture.
.
Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. There was no activity of the Spirit mentioned at the time of his anointing by Samuel for the kingship. The idea here was to disassociate the tine of the onset of accompaniment by God's Spirit from yhe anointing, so confusion of the two would not occur in this thread.
What I wrote was not false, and implies an intention to deceive, which is not the same as merely being merely wrong, although it was neither.
Exactly, yes -— for the transfer of the powers of the Holy Spirit.
This is why laying on of hands is used for the ordination or consecration of deacons, presbyters and bishops, as seen in the Acts of the Apostles, the Timothy and Titus letters, and other books of the New Testament. That us why it is essential in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
Why am I not surprised?
I have no problems with you and understood what you were trying to put across in spite of the false accusations of "heresy" shot at you. The only thing I would warn about is in watching what you say to some in Freepmails because you already know they will use it to condemn you. The funny thing is they NEVER criticize fellow Catholics who openly use profanity on the RF threads, which IS against the rules. No such rules apply in private messaging but we already know the feigned offense (we're all grown-ups, right?) will be used against you back on the thread - often because they have no real defense against the truth that you are actually speaking.
When ANY perceived offense is not only broadcast but saved up like a record of wrongs to pound on in place of reasonable AND respectful discussion, we should avoid such a one knowing their hearts are hardened and they lack the kind of Christian love the Lord expects of us.
Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no account of wrongs. Love takes no pleasure in evil, but rejoices in the truth. (I Corinthians 13:4-6)
Mrs Don-o: "This is false in every part."
Would you like to offer where the above is false in every part? I'll wait ...
I see it’s throw Luther under the bus day today. Bring up Mary and he’s allowed back on the bus.
Everyday is “throw Luther under the bus” Day. The same goes for Lucifer.
David prayed that God would not take the Holy Spirit from him:
So the presence of the Holy Spirit - even His filling - could have been removed from the person. However, once Jesus came, the Holy Spirit indwells the born-again believer and we are sealed with Him until the day of Redemption (Ephesians 4:30). He is the "earnest of our inheritance" - the down payment, if you will, that assures us we are Christ's and will never be forsaken, lost or cast out.
No. Disputably, The special call by God to the already-saved chosen servant for some ministry:
"Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy,
with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them;
that thy profiting may appear to all" (1 Tim. 4:13-15 AV).
The gift that was in Timothy was a unique ability, imparted by the already-indwelling Holy Spirit, for some special service to/for The Master, recognized by spiritually mature men of his assembly, and commended to it by them through the outward sign of their concensus by each placing his hand in union with the others in approval and commission.
"By prophecy" is regarding the spiritual discernment already exercised by Paul:
"Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee
by the putting on of my hands" (2 Tim. 1:6 AV).
and by it Paul spoke prophetically to the elders of Timothy's assembly for their consideration as a college of co-equal board of certification for his ordination, themselves guided by the Spirit. Divining the gift, it was that ability to act as an overseer, exhorter, and teacher of doctrine, having sharpened it by participating as a worker in Paul's ministry of church-planting, together with others. As an Apostle, Paul had the ability to recognize and emphasize such gifts as he enumerated in I Cor. 12:4+ and Romans 12:6+, identified and publicized according to his goal for them:
"For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; . . ." (Rom. 1:11 AV)
such gifts imparted to each by the Holy Ghost, to be used in the local Body of members Christ, a Temple of the Spirit, of which he reminded the Corinthians about their local assembly of Christians:
"What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you,
which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body,
and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:19,20).
It is the local church, guided by its elders, that saves trains, promotes, certifies, and ordains individuals for the work of the ministry (Eph. 4:12) and when commissioned, sends them out for the purpose of spreading the Gospel, making more disciples and planting more self-governing, autonomous, independent, immersionist churches that exercise the Four Primary Ordinances (making disciples, baptizing them into the spiritual Church of Christ, observe the Memorial Supper of Remembering Christ's preeminence till he comes, and sovereignly preferring the other members of the assembly above themselves so that the world can mark them as true disciples, friends, and servants of The Christ of The Bible.
What you propose, a human-initiated transfer of spiritual power, is not what I see as the God's chief purpose for the official "laying on of hands" in the culture of Christ.
It certainly cannot be reserved for "absolutely nothing else" in the Christian economy. Scripture alone contradicts you in this.
What is at the pleading call of the gospellized sinner is the Holy Spirit's faithful conviction of the condemned pagan criminal of the facts of sin, righteousness, and judgment, and of the need for confession, repentance, and yielding to guidance by the Holy Spirit to the Cross of Calvary for crucifixion-death of the Old Man, birth of the New, and contingent reception of the gift of The Holy Spirit as an Eternal Tenant and Comforter.
Have you, E-S, entertained this as the Scripture-validated mryhod of transfer of the power of the Holy Ghost into a human?
What part of “unbloody sacrifice” do you not understand?
Elsie must have erred in terming the Way of Christ as "Catholic," or even "catholic" (as the Prods recite in their creeds). For if they had been "catholic" with an extra-biblical over-seeing government of local assemblies, Jesus would have just said, "Now, Current Pope, . . ." (of which Beloved John was not one), ". . . you're going to have to correct these churches in the Ephesus Diocese, starting with the headquarters, and here are my criticisms for you to see to as My mediator." etc, etc, etc.
No, it was not that way. He addressed the chief speaker/leader of each independent, autonomous localized assembly as to his/her faults to be corrected, for his own church and all the other co-equal-in-accountability chapels to take note of, and be advised; even to the churches of today. There was no super-church authority then to be addressed. There was no "catholic church" (singular) on Earth mentioned in the New Testament, only The One in Heaven:
"To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven,
and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, . . ." (Heb. 12:23-24a AV).
That's the only Perfect Church, and it's not--has never been--a visible one on Earth. To the Apostles and Paul, there were only churches, plural, with no organized dictatorship superseding and dominating all local gatherings.
Each gathering was independent, and governed by a plurality of elders, sometimes having a Ruling Elder and/or leader functioning as "under-shepherd" to the Chief Shepherd: ". . . our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep . . ." (cf. Heb. 13:20).
The Apostles knew that power corrupts (the seeking for power divided even the eleven disciples as they marched along with Jesus on the path to Olivet, the night before HHe, watching them, knew He had to die; Lk. 22:24-26), and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They later did not seek for the huge prototype Jerusalem church-group to dominate the little newly-formed Gentile churches (although some interfering Judaizers did, and were stopped from their efforts). But the later Byzantine and Roman antiNicene successors did, and squashed out the true holiness preached anf lived by the humble Disciple-Apostles.
Repeat: No quasi-catholic universalism existed of the kind suggested by Ignatius of Antioch; incorporated by Constantine as a state religion for the theological control of his religionist intellectuals as a loyalty-generating government device; and legitimized by the Bishop of Hippo, Augustine, reverse-engineering the relationship between Roman government and Christianized pagan religion.
There was no "catholic church" at the outset of Christianity, but later on it came into play as a empowering strategy by theologically-trained Christianized Hellenic philosophers.
"But the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD troubled him" (1 Sam 16:14 AV).
I don't see him being de-anointed, for he was still King until death, when the kingdom incrementally passed to David, the pre-anointed king-in-the-wings.
I don't think your equation is balanced. Oilation does not equal Spiritualizing.
And the interpretation "take not thy spirit from out of me" is not precluded, but "take not the Spirit away from beside me" is possible. But my understanding of OT doctrine is that the Holy Spirit did not indwell any human, from Adam until John Baptist, so I would believe context meant in 1 Samuel 16:13 after Saul's defalcation. When Samuel anointed David, ". . . and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward." I think that means "upon" David, not "in." So if not "in," how can take (remove) not Thy Holy Spirit mean "out of" rather than "away from"?
Right now, it's just my assessment, but maybe the LORD will incline to make it more or less definite.
But I'll keep it in mind, BB.
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.