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.
You're making a HUGE presumption with this statement.
You mean like the Immaculate Conception, which the Catholic Encyclopedia online admits there is no direct or categorical support found in Scripture?
Or like the debate I was watching last night on indulgences between James White and Peter D. Williams where Williams pretty much admitted the doctrine on indulgences has developed over time.
The most salient point in the whole debate was made by White.
A rough quote....in 50 to 100 years the Scriptures and their teachings will not change....can the same be said of indulgences? Or any of the other beliefs of Rome? White makes this point at the 1:12:00 mark in the debate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0f95nvmfVs
Williams' reply was stunning in what he admitted and very damning to Roman Catholicism IMHO.
We've been told on these threads everything Rome believes is found in Scripture and was taught by the Apostles.
His reply beginning at the 1:15:08 mark
: He admits indulgences were not taught by the Apostles. It was a later development. END
This means that the teaching was not Apostolic! The very basis of Rome's claim to its authority is undercut by Williams...though I'm not sure he realizes what he's said. Or what our FR RC friends have been telling us is wrong.
To allow "development" as he cites, is to allow false doctrines to enter the faith. But Rome will claim there is no error because it has the "authority" to allow and make this "development".
If this is allowed one has to allow pretty much anything Rome wants to say is ok. As a good example of this, see the Fifth Marian Dogma this is currently being debated.
Never heard of the Augsburg Confession, have you? Or the Formula of Concord?
Yano. Protestant thought is based on Scripture and is derived from the Word of God.
I will quote you, then send you to post #276: “saying a Catholic is Christian just shows your ignorance!”
This would not be unexpected, since there was little separation between Roman control of governments... and occasional the theft.
This claim cannot be verified. It is simply an assertion. 23 and Me won't help.
And even more importantly, it has the sum total of meaning nothing. The correct answer is, so?
God's churches are identified by knowing Him and preaching the Gospel of Grace.
They are not identified by the bodies buried below.
In fact, I think Christ addressed this...
-Jesus "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness."
Bless you little heart, you keep making the same accusation and are apparently unable to read accurately. One more time: I attack Catholicism because it is a wannabe look-alike but not actual Christian faith; putting faith in the Mother of Jesus as a go between (your religion calls her a mediatrix) for man and God, serving the Catholic Mary through beads and petitioning prayer at statuary of the Catholic Mary, expecting her to shorten or avoid time in the Catholicism imaginary purgatory is paganism imprinted on what started out as Christian. That you are sadly unable to see this exposes your lack of understanding for the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.
“because Catholicism is not Christian,”
Roman Catholicism isn’t “Christian”, but is a “small-C christian”, in that it’s not Jewish, Muslim, etc. An actual Christian is born again — a follower of Christ and Christ alone. No Mary. No made-up “saints”.
1 Thess 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who are asleep, that you sorrow not, even as others who have no hope.
14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also who sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
Elsie, where is Jesus now? What does it mean to 'bring someone with HIM' from where they are? And as GOD brings them WITH JESUS, from whence does HE descend to the air around the Earth?
What will the dead in Christ receive at the sound of HIS calling their bodies from the grave? What did Paul teach regarding an immortal body and the gathering together unto HIM?
As you are now, alive in Christ, you have a corruptible body, a natural soul inherited from Adam, and an alive spirit. When you die/if you die before the Rapture, the corruptible body will return to the earth. Someday you will stand before the Bema Seat of Christ, in Heaven, and your deeds in the body will be 'weighed'. Some will shine like polished gold, some will be consumed as if by fire for they are as wood, hay, and stubble. But you will stand before the Bema Seat of Christ in a body fashioned for immortality to match your already even now immortal spirit alive in Christ.
Daniel was written to the Jews. It does not reveal the Church, the Church Age, or The Bride of Christ. That offering through Daniel DOES give a strong clue of some gap between the 69th week and the seventieth week. It even reveals that Messiah was cut off in His First appearing to be God with us. When you fail to discern the 'to whom' berses are speaking, wonderful details of God's working are missed.
The Rapture is for the Ekklesia, not for the Jews. The Ekklesia does not have differentiation between Jews and 'Greeks'. As Daniel put it in writing: Daniel 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon your people and upon your holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.
Prior to the Rapture, since Jesus returned to The Throne Room of God, if a Jew recognizes Jesus as truly Messiah come, that Jew is no longer a Jew by nature, he has become a member of the body of believers in Jesus as The One God sent, and is thus a member of the Ekklesia and will leave in the Rapture.
Is there a reliable teaching authority that gives those documents any validity?
Fathers?
Doctors?
Saints?
Martyrs?
Is there a Magisterium that protects it as part of a deposit of faith?
7
MHGinTN: Who has told you this lie? I have yet to attend a Protestant service where Luther is preached or taught. As a teacher in more than one Protestant denomination over the decades, I have yet to cite Luther, ever. I have however spent hours and hours preparing exposition on Paul's teaching and writing since it is inspired by The Holy Spirit.
One of if not the most brilliant pieces!
LOL ... thanks, I needed that humor.
Claiming that Catholic baptism causes an infant to receive the Holy Spirit is a huge assertion. Can you prove it through the same Scriptures you are claiming Catholicism interprets?
Perhaps, but if you are teaching "sola fide" then you are teaching the invention of Martin Luther. That you do not credit him but claim that it is from the Bible does not change that this teaching is Luther's invention.
It is basic logic.
Catholics proceed guided by Faith, which is a gift of the Holy Spirit.
Protestants pick up the sacred scriptures and interpret by the use of natural reason, which is wounded by sin. If they had Faith, there would not be so much wrestling with the meaning of words, phrases, and passages.
St Francis de Sales explains this better than I can in his book “The Catholic Controversies”. Reason is a rule of Faith, but it must always be used in a negative sense, ruling out what does not belong. There are seven other rules of Faith, but they are all positive, which means they rule in what belongs. Sacred Scriptures is one of those rules of Faith. There are others, but you can find that out on your own. By “rule of Faith” is meant something that tells us what we must believe in order to be saved. The gift of Faith is prior to all the rules of Faith. By the gift we recognize what belongs according to the rule. There is an analogy to Faith (aka the Divine Law) in the natural law. By the natural law, which is written on our hearts, we know what is or is not a moral act. Like recognizes like. Similarly by the gift of Faith, which is as it were a “mark” or impression left on our souls by the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, we recognize what is true as we come in contact with the rules of Faith. We can also immediately recognize what does not belong, and it is okay to use the human reason to show why something does not belong.
For example, you made the outlandish claim that Jesus does not have any blood in His resurrected body. That implies He does not have a heart either, for the purpose of a heart is to pump blood. He would also not have any need for veins or arteries. He would also not need lungs to oxygenate His blood. So ultimately I am using human reason to show that your statement about Jesus not having any blood is in its own peculiar way a denial of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, body and soul. It implies that Jesus is now not human in any way, He is a pure spirit only. But by Faith I know that He resurrected under His own power from the dead. Dead as in dead as a door nail, He bled so much that there was nothing left when Longinus pierced His side. I also believe that His resurrection gives me hope that I will also be resurrected, body and soul from the dead. That is an example of how the gift of Faith can show that a concept such as Jesus-not-having-blood is absurd and does not belong to the sacred deposit of Faith left to us by Jesus Christ through His Apostles.
Di the same ‘magicsteeringthem’ give you your current pope?
Do you actually understand what the phrase means? Do you realize that it is from PAUL that the meaning is derived?
As an old Belgian monk once taught us, God loves the family, which He created, so much that He allows the family to participate in the bringing into existence out of nothingness the human; both body and soul. This is a profound mystery. God is the Creator, and we participate in His creating.
Similarly, the family is given the greatest gift in that God allows the parents to participate in His gift-giving with regard to the gift of Faith.
Yes. Given that throughout Galatians Paul is opposing circumcision and adherence to the Mosaic Law, this would be the most reasonable conclusion. Nowhere else in Galatians does he criticize them for retaining pagan practices. It does not make sense to think that Paul here would suddenly refer to pagan practices and then return to the issue of Jewish practices without again mentioning any pagan practices.
Since those who were pushing the idea that they should be circumcised also called them to follow the Mosaic Law, it would have been part of this law to celebrate the Jewish feasts. Galatians shows that they were attracted to Jewish practices; nothing in it suggest that they were guilty of retaining pagan ones.
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.