Posted on 06/23/2018 7:48:28 AM PDT by Salvation
Bowing at the mention of Jesus’ name is an old practice that has since fallen into wide disuse
Msgr. Charles Pope June 10, 2018
Question: I was taught to nod my head when the name of Jesus was spoken. I see some priests and congregants do it, but not most. What is the current practice? — Diane Garrett, via email
Answer: Liturgically it is not required. This is a pious custom that, while less common today, is still observed by many. This is not only in the liturgy, but at any time the name of Jesus is uttered, and also, quite commonly, the name of Mary. In the traditional Latin Mass, where clergy wear birettas (a kind of square hat with a pom), there is the additional tipping (lifting off) of the biretta at the names of Jesus, Mary and the saint of the day. This external and very visible action also helped the faithful remember to bow their heads.
This laudable custom has sadly declined. Some clergy and others still observe it, and, while it is not required, it is worthy of being encouraged. Other customs too should not be forgotten, such as making the Sign of the Cross when passing a Catholic Church, praying the Angelus at noon and 6 p.m., and so forth. The generations raised in the 1960s and ’70s largely abandoned such practices. However, many of their children have rediscovered some of these lost customs like a precious heirloom brought down from the attic. Thus, while being careful not to harshly judge those who do not follow this non-required custom, many can joyfully take it up again and encourage others to do so.
But what God has revealed is what is in question. Protestants often quote Galatians, as well as Romans, to support their ideas about faith and works; but they do this with the presumption that Paul is stating what they believe. I hold, from a reading of these two letters, that this is a misrepresentation of Paul.
I do and it's wonderful! And you *could* too.
Why not continue with Galatians and see what Paul has to say? To this end, without reading into Paul preconceived ideas, up to this point in Galatians can you point out from what Paul has written in the letter so far how he means "works of the law" and the "law" to mean anything other than circumcision and the Mosaic Law?
Reading is good, of course. But you've already made it clear that you don't want to do the work that would reveal the message of the book and how each paragraph supports that message.
And I told you I support your right to live your life as you wish. 😊
Oh, I hear you. That is what you think based on reading.
But of course, there is a lot going on there that must be identified and then compared to the rest of Paul's work. When you approach things as you are, you are confirming a bias.
No, what I will not do is accept your preconceptions of what Paul is saying. From beginning to end Paul makes clear than in Galatians he is arguing against the Judaizers and their insistence that Christians must be circumcised and observe the Mosaic Law. If, as you claim, Paul is saying more then that would be brought out as we proceed with the letter. To contrary, however, it true. This is brought out by Paul's own summary and conclusion, one that he writes with his own hand:
6:11 See with what large letters I am writing to you in my own hand! 12 It is those who want to make a good appearance in the flesh who are trying to compel you to have yourselves circumcised, only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 Not even those having themselves circumcised observe the law themselves; they only want you to be circumcised so that they may boast of your flesh. 14 But may I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither does circumcision mean anything, nor does uncircumcision, but only a new creation. 16 Peace and mercy be to all who follow this rule and to the Israel of God. 17 From now on, let no one make troubles for me; for I bear the marks of Jesus on my body. 18 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen.Elsewhere he may develop the idea of faith and works as you believe, but that is not what he is doing in Galatians.
I would suggest that you take care of that plank in your own eye before you worry about the splinter in mine.
Ha!
I had an advantage you've never had amigo. I'm grateful.
And yet, in Galatians you cannot show how Paul is speaking of anything other than circumcision and the Mosaic Law. You can only read into him your own preconceived ideas. Talk about confirming a bias!
How,ironic that you cooment on forcing preconceived notions on interpretation of Scripture.
Catholics do that all the timewith the perpetual virginity of Mary, the priesthood, transubstantiation, confession to a priest and a whole host of other doctrines.
How,ironic that you cooment on forcing preconceived notions on interpretation of Scripture.
Catholics do that all the timewith the perpetual virginity of Mary, the priesthood, transubstantiation, confession to a priest and a whole host of other doctrines.
“And yet, in Galatians you cannot show how Paul is speaking of anything other than circumcision and the Mosaic Law”
It is more accurate to say I tried to help you, but you know the best thing to do, so I smiled and waved and said, “enjoy your trip!.
(All the while knowing you’re going in circles)
As the saying goes, “when the student is ready, the teacher appears.”
Nice trick. You will show me how Paul in Galatians is presenting Luther's idea about faith and works only if I first accept Luther's idea about faith and works. The fact is that you cannot show any error in what I have presented and you are trying to hide the fact by claiming some sort of higher enlightenment, one that is reserved for the already initiated. As for students and teachers, I am not your student and do not presume to be my teacher. If you can show fault with what I have presented then do so.
“The fact is that you cannot show any error in what I have presented...”
Choosing to give you the freedom to pursue your life on the terms you chose. You deserve that.
Stay safe and watch other cars!
You have not shown that there is any other place where this happens.
Keep trying.
You have not shown the verses mean what you want them to. The burden of proof is on you.
They are the only two places in Sacred Scripture where God breathes on man. You were preposing that there were other places, and you called me ignorant of the New Testament.
But so far, you have not shown any other instances. The burden of proof is on you.
Catholics interpret Sacred Scriptures enlightened by the gift of Faith. Protestants interpret by the light of human reason. Both processes are similar in form, but the latter results in chaos.
******
How,ironic that you cooment on forcing preconceived notions on interpretation of Scripture.
Catholics do that all the timewith the perpetual virginity of Mary, the priesthood, transubstantiation, confession to a priest and a whole host of other doctrines.
Prove it.
But so far, you have not shown any other instances. The burden of proof is on you.
As you seem to want to split hairs we can do that.
Genesis 2:7 says God breathed into his into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.
John 20:22 says the following: 22And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Two different events done two different ways.
Now if you're going to equate the two then you have to allow Revelation 11:11
11But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them.
"By the breath of God they perish, And by the blast of His anger they come to an end. Job 4:9
Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; 2 Thessalonians 2:8
'I will pour out My indignation on you; I will blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and I will give you into the hand of brutal men, skilled in destruction. Ezekiel 21:31
But with righteousness He will judge the poor, And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. Isaiah 11:4
Further, you will have to allow 2 Timothy 3:16 for another example of God breathing.
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
There are more verses dealing with the breath of God in relation to His creation and mankind.
Now, we can keep playing but you will continue to lose.
Your attempt to equate the passages in Genesis and John fails as they are two different situations.
You've still not addressed the context of the passage in John in relation to the New Testament. I'm leaving that one up to you to figure out.
I stand corrected....you don't know either the OT or the NT.
Paul is not making circumcision itself wrong, but contextually wrong based on it stood for, which was that of "another gospel" that of supposing one can by justified as fit for acceptance by God on the basis of his performance, thereby making Christ of "no effect," to profit them nothing, (Gal. 5:1-4) ,
Keeping the moral law is not censured any more than circumcision itself is, but the purpose of it is what is at issue. Again, if one could be justified by any system of attaining to the perfect standard then the Law would be it, "for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21)
If Paul meant to attack only the ceremonial law as the means of justification then he would have specified that, and not contrasted justification by law-keep with justification by faith.
Abraham himself was not justified by works even before the Law, but by effectual faith. though each time he acted out that faith he was justified as being a believer, vs. of dead faith.
As for "becoming good enough to be with God as in Catholicism," this show a marked misunderstanding of Catholic theology. We do not earn God's grace by our own merit or "becoming good enough." It is a pure unmerited gift, first received in baptism and, if necessary, restored in confession; in both cases before we are "good enough."
No: there is no "marked misunderstanding of Catholic theology," for all you have done is made "becoming good enough to be with God" to be by grace, which I did not contradict, not does "by grace" contradict my charge.
For the basis of justification via the regeneration the act of baptism is imagined to effect, even without the require repentant whole-hearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) is that of the holiness of heart, meaning one is formally justified by his own (by grace) righteousness, versus the regenerate being justified by imputed righteousness, which is then acted out .(Rm. 4)
However, since in reality the sinful Adamic nature remains, and manifests itself, thus (unless one attains to perfection in this life and has it at death) then the RC must endure purifying punishments to atone for sins and become actually good enough to be with God, and atone for sins.
If you want the actual Catholic teaching i could provide it. Tired right now. This FR recent post may suffice.
Nor do are we obliged to live according to God's moral law in order to earn salvation. Salvation is a gift, but one that can be lost if we continue to live according to the flesh.
If can be lost by rejection of its cause, that of faith, which appropriated justification, thus this is forfeited by a contrary decision to reject faith, formally as in Gal. 5, or by impenitent will-full sin as in Heb. 3 + 10.
See my prior post 159 on this to save typing, by God's grace.
Over and out.
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.