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.
No matter how many times it is posted Roman Catholics will deny it.
1) If you are asking me to rely on your own personal testimony to that particular assertion then, no you are not a sufficiently credible source for me to place the security of my eternal soul.
2) I don’t consider you credible but go ahead and enumerate your Fathers, Doctors, Saints and Martyrs if you think it will make a case for whatever it is you’re selling.
3) It’s not my Church it is His Church, you sound bitter and confused, if you have issues with it, I suggest you take it up with Him.
7
So you cut and paste to illustrate my point?
Do you see the irony.
7
So that’s a yes. You DO think that you can obey God’s law of love perfectly. Is that correct?
1: Then why are you asking me to rely on YOUR personal testimony instead of providing Scriptural proof that your claims are correct? Instead you’re only providing condescending commentary, and then whining when people are snarky back at you.
2: 5 minutes on Google can provide the answer just as well as I can, but in 5 seconds I can start with Dr. Luther himself, CFW Walther, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer, in addition to Jan Hus and the Hussites, the Huguenots, CS Lewis, and Philipp Melanchthon.
3: Then your so-called Magisterium is doing a very poor job at it. In fact, if we were to judge from their behavior, I would say that the so-called ‘church’ of Rome is making a very good imitation of the Whore of Babylon.
It’s not a very good church when your leaders hate Christ, is it?
But go ahead and condescend to everyone else you encounter without an ounce of Scriptural evidence other than trying to tell me that the Bible doesn’t REALLY mean what it actually says.
It must make you so proud.
L
Well, he does have the Roman Catholic scorecard so you can see how good of a Roman Catholic you are.
Man this is funny. A certain someone claims that we should listen to what Rome says because their Magisterium supposedly defends the true teaching.
I point out that the people that he’s claiming we should listen to are horrible deliberate sinners of the worst kind (and have been changing and distorting the teachings for hundreds of years, but that’s another story).
And he goes ‘well take it up with God, not me.’
All I can think of now is that he seems to have admitted that he’s happy to learn from the same people who cover for pedos or ARE pedos and have cocaine sodomy orgies. In fact, they MUST be who God chose.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
In 50-100 years in the future, the Gospel found in the New Testament will not change. Rome cannot make the same claim on its beliefs.
Williams admitted that Rome has changed its position over the years....he calls it development.
We've seen it in threads on FR when we discuss Unam Sanctam or pre-Vatican 2 or post Vatican 2.
For so much of what is near and dear to Rome they cannot point to the Scriptures, the ECFs of the first two centuries, or later in some cases, to substantiate what they believe. Williams pretty much agreed with that in both of the debates.
With the mess that we're witnessing in the Vatican and elsewhere in Roman Catholicism I would seriously be asking myself, if I were Roman Catholic, can I trust my denomination.
Now, as one who follows the New Testament, which has not and does not change, we can confidently point to the unchanging Scriptures for guidance.
The Roman Catholic cannot point to their denomination's history and make the same claim...if they're honest.
Circular reasoning is strong with the FRomans...
It is not a question of earning salvation; that is a pure gift. But we can loose it. Paul was very insistent that those who persist in sin will not inherit the kingdom of God. But, of course, Protestants like to pretend that those words are not there.
We are made 'sinless' in God's eyes because of our faith in Jesus as the One Whom GOD sent for our redemption from the sin nature and it is by our faith in HIM that we no longer have sin accountable to us regarding eternal life in GOD.
We are made sinless in fact. God is not a god of lies. His grace removes sins from the soul; He does not just cover it over. Of course, for most this process will not be completed until after death in Purgatory.
It is indeed my position and that of Paul that we need not and cannot keep the moral law of God while still an untransformed human.
This is NOT what Paul is teaching. Again:
5:16 I say, then: live by the Spirit and you will certainly not gratify the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh has desires against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you may not do what you want. 18 But if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, rivalry, jealousy, outbursts of fury, acts of selfishness, dissensions, factions, 21 occasions of envy, drinking bouts, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Since you are knowledgable in the moral law of God and the Mosaic law, do you contend that someone is able to never transgress either and thus be justified?
This is not what Catholics teach we must accomplish to gain salvation. How could someone even suggest this given what we teach about confession and Purgatory. We need, with God's grace, to strive to keep the moral law. When we fail, however, we have the free forgiveness of our sins through confession. Whatever remains in us of sin after death his cleansed from our souls by God's grace in Purgatory. But if do not try, if we do not repent of serious sin, then, as Paul clearly states, we will not inherit the kingdom of God.
We are saved only by faith in Christ, but not by faith alone. If you read all of Romans you will see that his argument about faith and works is the same as that in Galatians, faith without the works of the Mosaic Law. But let us leave that for now since we are already occupied with Galatians.
How about this appeal to Ephesians 2:8-10 NASB
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Those citations mean nothing without the full quotations. It not just a question of the phrase “sola fide” but of the Lutheran means of without observance of the moral law. “Sola fide” would not be objectionable if it means what Paul is speaking of in Romans and Galatians, faith without works of the Mosaic Law.
You cannot appeal to Romans 5 without understanding the entirety of Romans. As I have done with Galatians, we could start at the beginning and proceed through Romans to understand what Paul is really saying. I would suggest, however, that we do this in a different thread. This one is already becoming overburdened.
Except for the fact that’s NOT what Paul was speaking of in Romans OR Galatians.
If Paul was speaking only of the Mosaic law, then Paul wouldn’t have used Abraham as an example, would he? Since Abraham came BEFORE the Mosaic law.
And elsewhere in Paul’s letters, Ephesians 2 to be specific, Paul yet again emphasizes that works do NOT grant salvation. And you can’t even argue that he means ‘of the Law’ because he doesn’t use those words.
Sorry, but repeating the same talking point over and over without evidence other than ‘because I say so’ does not good theology make.
GAME.
SET.
MATCH.
That Abraham was credited as righteous before, and without, the Mosaic Law is the whole point that the Mosaic Law is not necessary for righteousness. The claims of the Judaizers is false. But what did existed before the Mosaic Law, and continues after it, is the moral law of God. And Paul is quite insistent that if we violate this by persisting in sin then we will not inherit the kingdom of God. Why are these words of Paul so hard to accept?
Moral law, huh?
I believe that Paul said, “For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”
Salvation CANNOT come through the law.
Which is Paul’s point; salvation comes through FAITH. IE: “Abraham believed God, and it was CREDITED to him as righteousness.”
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.