The Vatican’s top official on relations with non-Catholic Christians has called upon the Catholic Church to critically self-examine itself in response to the “exponential” rise of Pentecostal movements.
CP HOME
> Intl > Ecumenical
Rise of Pentecostalism Spurs Call for Catholic 'Self-Examination'
By
Eric Young
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Nov. 26 2007 11:55 AM EST
[-] Text [+]
Comments
Thad-
We are allowed to ask saints to pray for us. Understand? Just like asking your evil protestant shamans to pray for you, or a friend to pray for you. Same thing, except we don't whine and complain, and cry like a baby when YOU do it :)
Thad-
Since you are so very ignorant, I will talk to you as though you are ignorant. Let us examine the hail mary prayer.
Hail (a sign of respect, a greeting) Mary, full of grace (Gabriel said "thou art full of grace") the lord is with thee (she bore the son of God, so he is most certainly with her) blessed art thou among women (God chose her) and blest is the fruit of your womb, Jesus (Jesus was blest) Holy Mary (she was chosen by God, she is holy) mother of God (Jesus was God, she was his mother) pray for us sinners now and at the our of death (SHE is praying for US! we are not praying to her she is praying for US, dumb dumb)
Thaddeus: (or somebody else)
Not trying to be mean or argue anything. Paul says to beware of false doctrines many times throughout the Bible. The rosary is very much a false doctrine. I give you the Lords prayer is Biblical and Jesus gave it to us as guidance on how to pray to Him. However prayer to Mary is very very wrong. Nowhere in the Bible does it say to pray to Mary or any other saint of God. The Bible Specifically says that the name of Jesus is the ONLY saving name (Acts 4:10-12). Timothy told us that Jesus is the ONLY mediator between God and man as well (1Timothy 2:5). The Apostle's Creed is nothing more than a "statement of faith" drafted by the Nicean Council, there is no place in the Bible where it says to recite this creed, or any creed. Glory Be....See all these you are mentioning are "pre-written" prayers (if thats the right words for it). Prayer is conversation and time spent with Jesus, there is no need to recite a creed type prayer. As I say again...beware of false doctrine...do not follow after the works of men, but after the Word of God.
Praying the rosary is very scriptural. The Our Father, the Glory Be, and the Apostles Creed are all based on the Bible. The 20 mysteries of the rosary are all scriptural - We meditate on the passion, pentecost, the incarnation, etc., while we say the Hail Marys. The Hail Mary repeats the words of Gabriel - Hail Mary, Full of Grace, the Lord is with Thee - and Elizabeth - Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb . The last part of the Hail Mary - Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death - Is intercessory prayer, which is commended by Paul in 1 Timothy chapter 2. James says in James 5:16 to pray for each other, and that the prayers of a righteous man are powerful. Mary's soul magnifies the Lord, according to Luke 1, so who is more righteous than her, and who else better to pray for us than a holy person alive and well in heaven, in that great cloud of witnesses, whose very soul magnifies JESUS?
As Gabriel said - HAIL MARY !!
"yeah. what is up with the rosary and the Hail Mary. talk about anit-scriptural"
To pray to Mary is anti-Scriptural, period.
Truthandjustice1,
Hey my friend, how are you doing this evening? Forgive me if I have offended you in any way. The reason that I have been pressing you for a reply to my questions is not to be annoying or rude. I have been trying to demonstrate the unnecessary and burdensome experience that comes when one tends to rely upon and defend extra biblical traditions (Catholic & Protestant). Believe me, I know; I do not accept the additional traditions that my own church is teaching. I wish we could all become zealous for God’s Word which never contradicts itself. Church traditions have not only contradicted themselves throughout history but have also contradicted the Word of God. This has been my point and reason for pressing you with my questions. It is my sincere prayer that we stake not our salvation upon what men have said but upon the sure Word of God!!!!!!!!!!!
The Rosary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xi3i5r9yhE&feature=related
It has the King of Rock and Roll (Elvis Presley - who probably a lot of you don't like, but to me he was the king of Rock and Roll) singing miracle of the rosary ... what a great song! There is an explanation before the song.
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
The use of some means of counting prayers is not restricted to Catholics. The Brahmin of India or Thibet has his long rosary which he uses to measure his eternal repetitions of the praises of Buddha. The Mohammedan votary has his chaplet of ninety-nine beads, to count his fervent invocations to Allah.
NOTE. Many other forms of beads for the counting of prayers have come into use through the devotion of the faithful, and have been approved by the Church. Space will not permit going into details concerning them.
Among the better known are the Brigittine beads, consisting of seven Our Fathers in honor of the sorrows and joys of the Blessed Virgin, and sixty-three Hail Marys to commemorate the years of her life; a similar rosary in use among the Franciscans, with seventy-two Hail Marys, based on another tradition of Mary’s age; the Crown of our Saviour, with thirty-three Our Fathers in honor of the years of our Lord s life; and five Hail Marys in honor of His sacred Wounds; the beads of the Five Wounds, established by the Paosionist Fathers, approved in 1823 and 1851, consisting of five divisions, each having five Glories in honor of Christ s Wounds, and one Hail Mary in commemoration of the Sorrowful Mother; the beads of the Immaculate Conception and the Crosier beads. [End]
From The Word of God:
Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
yeah. what is up with the rosary and the Hail Mary. talk about anit-scriptural...
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Matthew 6:7
The Government of the Church: Chapter 1 The Pope
From the Externals of the Catholic Church. Her Government, Ceremonies BX Festivals JJ 51 Sacramentals, and Devotions 1917
"Death lays his icy hand on kings," sang the old poet; and he who is more exalted than any king must bow to the same in exorable law. When the Sovereign Pontiff dies, his actual death is verified by a quaint ceremony. One of the Cardinals approaches the bedside and strikes the forehead of the dead Pope three times with a silver mallet, calling him by his baptismal name. The death of the Pope being thus legally attested, the Cardinals are summoned to the Conclave to elect his successor.
From The Word of God:
Truthandjusice1,
All I did was ask a question, thinking that you had an opinion regarding them. Apparently, no answer is an answer. I did not intentionally want to antagonize you with my questions.
Why am I Catholic? - part of the answer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0nSjxDKJEo
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
Who Gave Us the Rosary ? The devotion takes its name from the Latin " rosarium," a garden of roses, or a wreath of the same beautiful and symbolic flowers; or, according to some, more directly from the title " Mystical Rose," given to Mary in her Litany. It was established by St. Dominic, the famous founder of the Order of Preachers; and he testifies in his writings that he acted under the direction of the Blessed Mother of God.
However, there are traces of somewhat similar methods of praying before his time, although they did not include any part of the Hail Mary, at least until about the twelfth century, when the first part of that beautiful prayer came into use.
It seems strange to us Catholics who recite it so frequently, to learn that for more than eleven centuries our forefathers in the faith knew nothing of the Hail Mary, and that the latter part of that prayer was not added unal some centuries later. Therefore, when the Rosary was invented, it was composed of the Our Father and the first part of the Hail Mary only, repeated probably much as we use them at the present day. [End]
From The Word of God:
Ecclesiastes 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
CHAPTER XXXII
The Rosary: From the Externals of the Catholic Church
Repetition in prayer is a very ancient custom. It would seem to be natural for man to recite his prayers over and over, especially when he is inspired by a spirit of earnest devotion. Whether he is returning thanks for favors received or offering petitions to God, he finds that the repeating of his prayers satisfies his religious instincts. This usually leads to a resolution to say a certain number of prayers daily; and then the utility of having some counting device suggests itself at once. Hence comes the string of beads which we call a Rosary.
The use of some means of counting prayers is not restricted to Catholics. The Brahmin of India or Thibet has his long rosary which he uses to measure his eternal repetitions of the praises of Buddha. The Mohammedan votary has his chaplet of ninety-nine beads, to count his fervent invocations to Allah. [end]
From The Word of God:
Mt 6:6-8 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
Defensive? no just honest, if this site has a link to a good Catholic site that has answers to questions you feel are not being answered completely then why wouldn't you use it? unless you just want to argue for argument sake. As for acts, "all they are loosing is people" show me statistics that in the US or in the world as a whole that the Catholic Church is losing people. I'm not talking about an individual country I'm talking about the US (since you brought up the US) and the world as a whole...I'll be waiting, you have the whole internet it should be easy. Personally I don't mind discussing my faith and am glad that so many articles get published on my faith. I think it exposes a lot of people to the Church and thus are numbers continue to rise, yes acts I said rise.
Feast of the Most Pure Heart of Mary:
The feast of the Archconfraternity of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, refuge of sinners, is celebrated on the Sunday before Septuagesima at Paris, Chartres, Reims, Limoges, Vannes, Nantes, at Lucca in Toscana, in the ecclesiastical province of St. Louis, Missouri, etc.
Catholic Encyclopedia
But God directs us to seek and take refuge in the Lord.
Psalm 9:9 The Lord also will be a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble. Psalm 9:10 And they that know thy name will put their trust in thee: for thou, LORD, hast not forsaken them that seek thee.
truthandjustice I stated earlier that the Catholic church was loosing money and power. all they are loosing is people. I know that the Catholic church owns a lot , a verry lot of stock in some verry big besineses and if they wonted to they could bankrupt the USA. all there stock is tax free because it falls under the church. the church all so has a lot of verry powerfull people in it also. but if you would take the time to read Revelation you would see that the Vatican is the seven hills the BIBLE talks about. This is where the BIBLE says the devil sits....under the umberela of power and money.
Truthandjustice1,
Could it be that you have become defensive because you had no answer concerning Pope Gregory's letter or the passages from Revelation?
Truthandjustice1,
I appreciate your honesty and willingness to have discussed these matters at all. Disagreements are to be expected when people in general post their theological positions. I too post for the fellowship but also like to share the gospel in its entirety. I have not been inquiring about Catholicism but have compared its teaching in light of the Word of God. You have posted certain claims just like the rest of us, so, why get flustered when others ask you a question. If you do not wish to discuss a certain topic, then just say so. I believe that my questions were legitimate since my quotations were directly from the Bible (Revelation) and from someone who Catholics hold in high esteem; a Pope (Pope Gregory). You are right; receiving no answer at all does qualify for an insufficient response.
If we were to talk about every aspect of Catholicism we would be debating for years. Take for example this site which isn't Catholic. Do a search of Catholic in all stories and you reach a number of something like 384 articles that Catholicism is mentioned/discussed. Now do a search of your former church, seventh day adventist - 7 times. When it comes to religious issues/questions the church is truly international and it would take years to discuss every aspect.
Online4Him,
I said from the outset that I'm willing to discuss my Catholic beliefs, but that some of my answers might not be sufficient for you. I told you that there is a link on this site to a Catholic site if you are truly interested in discussing aspects of our talk in more detail since the person running the site is obviously very interested in such debates. I also thought the book might be a good resource for you. You stated that you have left the SDA church and I guess if you would like to more about the Catholic faith then you should consult with somebody other than an anonymous Catholic who posts for fun.
Correction: the word is BUY not by.
Your reply was that I should by a book. ??????????????? Hmmmmmmm, ok.
It is obvious that you did not want to discuss my statement or answer my question. I believe that I have provided sufficient evidence that Rome DOES teach doctrines that are foreign to the first century church and the Word of God. I was actually hoping to continue our discussions but you have unfortunately decided to side step my questions. Those who choose to read our entire dialog in its context will know who has been forthright.
I stated that the passages of Revelation were referring to the FUTURE:
In my last comment, I used scriptural passages that talk about what is still yet FUTURE. These passages are not speaking of the past. (Page 3)
Your reply was that I should by a book. ??????????????? Hmmmmmmm, ok.
I ask you the following question:
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF POPE GREGORY’S (590-604) LETTER TO JOHN, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTATINOPLE (specifically the second paragraph)?
“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests”.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 226.
Your response:
I am still waiting because you did not respond!!!!!!!!!!!
Truthandjustice1,
Thank you for replying so quickly. All who have and can review our past discussions these past few days will realize that I have been specifically answering all of your questions and responding to all of your comments. Yet you fail to do the same in return; example:
You started the conversation regarding the church unity by saying:
WOW! I didn't even know that earlier last month, the Vatican released a joint declaration with the Orthodox Church in which Orthodox leaders recognized the Roman Catholic Pope as the highest rank in the unified Church. (Page 3)
I replied by with:
I am somewhat glad that joy has filled your heart today; however, I don’t believe that this news is good news. I know it is happening before our very eyes; that is evident, however, where in the bible does it say that in these last days that the world or church will unite and solve all of earth’s problems?
Perhaps it is a little premature to start discussing Eschatology (last day events) but the book of Revelation speaks of a time of DECEPTION that will proceed before Jesus returns –Revelation 12:9, 13:14, 18:23, 19:20, 20:3, 20:8, 20:10. (Page 3)
You brought up Transubstantiation (Page 1).
I responded (Page 1).
Throughout our discussions I have responded to the topics of the Mass, Mary, Church Fathers, Church Authority, Popes, etc – which can be attested to by all who have followed our discourses.
I read down on some of the comments my denomination that I attend is UPC but I my self read the King James Version of the Bible and stand on it.
ok you want to go by Roman history. go back and see how maney christians they killed. they then changed the BIBLE to say what they wanted it to say so they could controll the people and made their own religon. rember Saul worked for the Roman goverment before becoming a christian. the Roman church even came to America and pushed their religion on the Indians. they toled them to become catholics, or pay taxes and if they did not they would kill them. the Roman church even changed the ten comandments.
Online4Him,
My advice, if you want to reject tradition based on the writings of the early Christians, is to become a Mormon (A latter day saint) because Mormons argue that only thorough "restoration" (and not a simple "reformation") of the true Church and its holy doctrines would lead man to salvation. That's the difference I, as a Catholic, face I don't want to "reform" or "restore" what the early Christians wrote about the Jesus Christ and the Church I want to keep their writings and use it in relation to the bible. You've mentioned in the past how these traditions that Catholics hold on to bothers you, but as I mentioned before our roots are very deep and in my opinion blessed. Jesus Christ and the apostles were write to entrust the writings (early Christian writers, the works of the bible) to the Catholic Church and they were as right then as they are now and for that reason God will protect his church even though there have been evil people within it done through the ages. God will protect his Church because he made it for the world.
Online4Him,
Do you know what is frustrating is that you want to discuss revelations and make statements that based on your view of scripture it means this, but the reality of the situation is that not only am I supplying scripture but I'm backing it up with the early Christians. The people who were actually alive at that time, the people who some of them personally knew the apostles and are writing what they heard from them. However, you have this protestant reformation idea that what the early Christians believed is irrelevant and that the bible is the only way. Whereas the Catholic religion has much deeper roots and they can use the bible and support it by what the early Christians were writing about - you simply can't do that, so what do you do? you attack tradition and state that your interpretation of the bible is correct. I'm extremely happy that not only does my church have the our Lord and Savior at its foundation, but they can support their foundation by the bible (supported by the early Christians) and the Holy Eucharist.
On that note, I respect that you left the SDA church and that you are continuing to deepen your relationship with our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. I have taken your questions seriously and realize that you take your faith journey extremely seriously. There is a Catholic link on this site, and I've sent emails to the person in the past. There are knowledgeable people at the link, so if the answer I provide is not satisfactory then please ask them.
Truthandjustice1,
Once again you have not answered my previous questions regarding the book of Revelation's FURTURE coming apostasy passages and Pope Gregory's quotation (Universal Priest)? I continue to SPECIFICALLY answer your questions while you continue to side step mine; is that fair?
Truthandjustice1,
Transubstantiation –
When you take the WHOLE council of the Scriptures which never contradict themselves; we find a consistent and uniform doctrine concerning the Lord’s Supper. When we continually hear the scriptures say that Christ “ONCE” died for the sins of the world; we should accept it.
So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation – HEBREWS 9:28.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all – HEBREWS 10:10.
WHAT DOES THE WORD “ONCE” MEAN?
The Lord’s Supper is a “REMEMBRANCE” as indicated by the scriptural passage you gave me (1Corinthians 11:25); not to mention the other passage that I earlier shared with you in regards to this topic – Luke 22:19. The Lord’s Supper is a remembrance or commemoration of our deliverance just as the Passover was commemorated for the Jews deliverance. Your insistence that the bread and wine become the actual flesh and blood of Christ rejects the all sufficient sacrifice that Jesus made in our behalf. It also makes the scriptures to contradict themselves; which is a poor way to interpret them.
I appreciate all the time, work, and sincerity which come forth from your postings; however, it is just not sound biblical interpretation when we test the Bible through the eyes of the church fathers. We should test ALL traditions in light of what GOD has already said in his WORD.
Peter the first Pope? (Matthew 16:13-19) –
Jesus affirms Peter’s faith by declaring, “Thou art Petros (a movable stone) but upon this rock (this immoveable foundation – that I am the Christ) I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Church is built upon Jesus Christ. He is the cornerstone rejected by the builders (1Peter 2:4-8). Peter clearly understood the rock was Jesus. Paul clarifies the issue in 1Corintians 10:4 by proclaiming “That ROCK was CHRIST.” David declares, “Truly my soul waiteth upon God, from Him cometh my salvation. He only is my ROCK and salvation” (Psalm 62:1, 2).
For other FOUNDATION can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ – 1Corinthians 3:11.
There is no other foundation except JESUS.
call me stupid (and some of you already do) but if Jesus and his disciples were jewish, why didnt they speak hebrew? And if everyone spoke Aramaic, what happened to the hebrew language? a large number of people must have been speaking it, otherwise it would have faded into history to be spoken no more. So who spoke hebrew?
Online4Him,
There are a lot of early Christians who wrote about Peter being the head of the Catholic Church:
Ephraim the Syrian, Optatus, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus I, Jerome, Augustine, Council of Ephesus, Sechnall of Ireland, Council of Chalcedon,......
Online4Him,
Pope,
Origins of Peter as Pope
The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ's calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.
Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.
These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."
The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.
Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Online 4Him,
Pope
Pope Clement I
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).
Except for Online4Him nobody else has mentioned which denomination they belong to - I don't mind letting others know that I'm a Roman Catholic.
Online4Him,
Transubstantiation
The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71).
The early Church Fathers interpreted these passages literally. In summarizing the early Fathers' teachings on Christ's Real Presence, renowned Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior's body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).
From the Church's early days, the Fathers referred to Christ's presence in the Eucharist. Kelly writes: "Ignatius roundly declares that . . . [t]he bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup his blood. Clearly he intends this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. . . . Irenaeus teaches that the bread and wine are really the Lord's body and blood. His witness is, indeed, all the more impressive because he produces it quite incidentally while refuting the Gnostic and Docetic rejection of the Lord's real humanity" (ibid., 197–98).
"Hippolytus speaks of 'the body and the blood' through which the Church is saved, and Tertullian regularly describes the bread as 'the Lord's body.' The converted pagan, he remarks, 'feeds on the richness of the Lord's body, that is, on the Eucharist.' The realism of his theology comes to light in the argument, based on the intimate relation of body and soul, that just as in baptism the body is washed with water so that the soul may be cleansed, so in the Eucharist 'the flesh feeds upon Christ's body and blood so that the soul may be filled with God.' Clearly his assumption is that the Savior's body and blood are as real as the baptismal water. Cyprian's attitude is similar. Lapsed Christians who claim communion without doing penance, he declares, 'do violence to his body and blood, a sin more heinous against the Lord with their hands and mouths than when they denied him.' Later he expatiates on the terrifying consequences of profaning the sacrament, and the stories he tells confirm that he took the Real Presence literally" (ibid., 211–12).
I dont care what Tolkein said about Mary, or Catholics. Geez. The message that I had posted (in another room....with a different topic) was saying that just because someone reads the Bible doesn't make them a Christian any more than reading the LTOR makes a person a hobbit! That's the point. It has nothing to do with analogies and secret messages. I have no idea how you came up with that.
wow...talk about apples and oranges...
feet...?
ok...whatever...are we discussing Tolkein now? maybe he should have been Pope, eh?
Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary:
…But Mary was not merely passive at the foot of the Cross; "she cooperated through charity", as St. Augustine says, "in the work of our redemption".
The Catholic Encyclopedia: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07168a.htm.
Col 1:12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Col 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Mt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Jesus bore the work of our redemption alone.
Jester,
I can understand how you could read the trilogy from cover to cover it sounds like a great read. I'll read it over the Christmas:
Nor could Tolkien deny that the Holy Eucharist appears in The Lord of the Rings as the waybread (lembas), given by the elves to the hobbits to eat on their journey. The lembas reinforces the hobbits' wills and provides them with physical sustenance in the dark and barren lands on the way to Mount Doom. As the Church teaches, while the Eucharist still tastes and looks like bread and wine, our sensations shroud a deeper mystery: The Eucharist is truly Christ's body and blood. So in The Lord of the Rings the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Eucharist appear shrouded in the mysterious elements of Middle-earth. The best way to understand this is to see such examples of Catholic symbolism as literary "accidents." To leave them out would have diminished the story; they are parts of Tolkien's effort to make his world complete, true for all times and places.
Jester,
It sounds like somebody needs to read a few books again from cover to cover to understand the meaning and not just the words.
Jester,
It does relate to this topic because it shows how you could read something and not understand it. Tolkien readily admitted that the Virgin Mary forms the basis for all of his "small perception of beauty both in majesty and simplicity." It is not surprising, he admits, that the character of Galadriel—a created being endowed with radiant beauty, impeccable virtue, and powers of healing—resonates with the character of our Blessed Mother. I'm completely not surprised that you would totally miss that because you might have understood the words on the page but didn't understand the meaning behind it...sound familiar?
truthandjustice...
Um.....what?
The comment i made about reading the LTOR trilogy was from another forum about an entirely different thing than what we're discussing here! How in the world you brought that into this discussion is beyond me. Please focus here, okay? We're talking about Catholicism here. Geez, its like having a discussion with a ADHD kid after he's had two capuccinos!
Online4Him,
I'll answer your questions at a later date.
Jester,
I found an answer to my questions:
The Shire, described as the ideal community, reflects the social teachings of Catholicism. The Hobbits benefit from a community structure with little formal organization and less conflict. They work only enough to survive and otherwise enjoy each other's company. There is no jealousy, no greed, and rarely does anyone do anything unexpected. There is a wholeness and graciousness about it that seems to come naturally out of selflessness.
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/arts/al0160.html
I can just imagine Jester reading the trilogy from cover to cover as he purports and not truly understanding it - big surprise.
“Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal church, Paul, Andrew, John, were but heads of particular communities . . . and yet all were members under on Head. . . Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was truly holy”.
“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as God above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests”.
(Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. XII, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Epistles of St Gregory the Great, Book VII, Epistle 33) Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956, p. 226.
Let everyone judge for themselves which source has or is truthful and reliable: Rome’s tradition or Scripture which is the Word of God.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE for all – HEBREWS 10:10.
Transubstantiation is simply not biblical – Jesus said, “do this in REMEMBERANCE of me”.
"For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me." 1 CORINTHIANS 11:23-24
Notice how that verse ends:
"...this do in remembrance of me." Observing the Lord's Supper is a remembrance of Christ's work at Calvary, NOT A REENACTMENT. The same is true of Christ's blood:
"After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me." 1 CORINTHIANS 11:25
"And he (Jesus) took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." LUKE 22:19
You stated - The apostle Peter was the first Pope.
The is no historical or biblical evidence to support this claim; re-read the epistles of 1 & 2Peter and you will realize that they are absolutely silent regarding Peter being the first pope.
Since you only rely upon your churches’ tradition and repeated statements from popes throughout history; WHAT DO YOU THINK OF POPE GREGORY’S (590-604) LETTER TO JOHN, THE PATRIARCH OF CONSTATINOPLE (specifically the second paragraph)?
Truthandjustice1,
Regarding the rich young ruler: - Have you not read the passage that says, “. . . for whatsoever is not of FAITH is sin” – ROMANS 14:23. It is difficult for anyone to prove that salvation is by works because the entire New Testament teaches the exact opposite.
This is the question that you asked earlier – “Now, has any Pope ever denied that Christ has come in the flesh? Ever?
My answer is still YES!
The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Jesus took on the nature of Mary; who Rome erroneously teaches that she was without sin; therefore implying that Jesus has a DIFFERENT FLESH than we do!
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, HE ALSO HIMSELF LIKEWISE TOOK PART OF THE SAME; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; - HEBREWS 2:14.
Once again we continue to see Rome contradict the Word of God!
You stated – “but that He comes at each and every Catholic Mass -- in the flesh. . . “????????
Once again Rome contradicts the Word of God –
So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation – HEBREWS 9:28.
question: You know that I'm a Roman Catholic and am more than happy to share my faith with others but what about the rest of the people who are involved in this discussion? I know Online4Him was a seventh day adventist but has recently left that denomination. What about the rest of you?
Jester,
You might be able to help me out. You stated that you read the Lord of The Rings Trilogy from cover to cover. Tolkien meant the work to be distinctively Catholic, since he was a strong advocate for the Catholic Church. Can you please let me know why you think he meant by that? I haven't read the Lord of The Rings, but would like to know why Tolkien connected it to his Catholic faith. Could you please shed some light on that one for me. Thanks
Started reading all comments this past weekend and finding discussion very interesting and very familiar on both sides of subject. For now my input will only be selecting thumbs up and down.
"The Church doesn't have to quote the bible for all its decisions." So the Catholic church "put the Bible together", but doesnt rely on it. If there is more truth, then why was that not put in the Bible? Probably because the orginal church was lead by the Spirit in its assembling of the scriptures, and all that was needed was used, and all that was not needed was discarded. I think I'll start quoting the Book of Mormons. They have revelation that is needed in order to live a complete Chritstian life...
"As for salvation, nobody can judge another person's salvation..." so the Popes claim that the Catholic church is the only true way to salvation is incorrect?
The apostle Peter was the first Pope. As for salvation, nobody can judge another person's salvation - judge not or does nobody remember reading that in the bible? The Catholic Church, as I quoted from official teaching, doesn't say that about salvation. The Church doesn't have to quote the bible for all its decisions. Did it need to quote the bible to the early Christians when there was no bible? are the early Christians saved? Remember the early Christians didn't have the bible they relied on the Church, so what about them? Or are we just counting the ones saved as from the protestant reformation until know who accepted the word of God using the bible? How arrogant is that?
“Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament.”
Again, God made that decision and not the RC. Matter of fact, God uses Peter to give us some revelation as to what to expect in the New Testament.
"And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:15, 16).
Peter (through the Holy Spirit) is acknowledging all the epistles of Paul as inspired by God. This happened long before any Catholic decision.
truth... you mentioned "I'm not speaking as the Catholic Church only a lay person within the Catholic Church.."
so you're saying that the views you express on here are not necessarily the views shared by the Catholic church?
and you also said " think nearly all evangelical leaders who have studied theology know that the Catholic Church's Foundation is Our Lord ad Savior Jesus Christ, as it has been for 2,000 years." That being so, why do you continue to argue that the Catholics view of savation is above that of the Word of God. Jester asked you a question about salvation. Why do you quote a Pope? Why not see what the Bible has to say about it? Is it because it's contrary to what Catholicism teaches?
Let's keep in mind here that "The Catholic Church's boast in this is another proof of their fallliblity and sinfulness", that I'm not speaking as the Catholic Church only a lay person within the Catholic Church.
Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament
"For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven" (Psalm 119:89).
I will trust God concerning that decision.
Prophet,
I see that Franklin Graham is on the cover of CP because of the huge crowds he is drawing. Even he went on Fox news last year and stated: we (Catholics and Evangelicals) do agree on the cross, that Jesus Christ was the son of the living God who went to the cross, took our sins, died on that cross, was buried on the third day, according to the scriptures, rose again. And this is the essence. This is what we agree on and we can work together on and can build on. I think nearly all evangelical leaders who have studied theology know that the Catholic Church's Foundation is Our Lord ad Savior Jesus Christ, as it has been for 2,000 years.
Online4Him,
Even the Eastern Orthodox Church now recognizes the Pope as the head of the Christian Church.
Online4Him,
Jesus clearly asked the rich man to perform an act, I can't imagine how you would read that passage any differently. He already believed because he wanted to follow God and stated that he had obeyed all the commandments.
I already discussed Mary, but will repost it:
Your objection is that if Mary were without sin, she would be equal to God. In the beginning, God created Adam, Eve, and the angels without sin, but none were equal to God. Most of the angels never sinned, and all souls in heaven are without sin. This does not detract from the glory of God, but manifests it by the work he has done in sanctifying his creation. Sinning does not make one human. On the contrary, it is when man is without sin that he is most fully what God intends him to be.
"Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament." No....GOD decided the Canon...He just chose the Catholic church to do it. The Catholic Church's boast in this is another proof of their fallliblity and sinfulness. The CC is full of pride and conceit, which is evident in their claim to be the only true church. Their heart is hard and their ears are deaf to the voice of God, for their hope is not in Him. Their hope is in their religion. Their hope is in their priests and Popes. They have strayed from the Rock (Jesus Christ) and have built their house on another foundation. One that is built of wood, hay, and stubble. And it's works will be tried with fire and will be consumed. Only that which is built on Jesus Christ will last. Not that which is built on the prophets, or the apostles, or any other man. Jesus is the only true foundation.
Truthandjustice1,
I will probably buy the book and use it for future references; it should be interesting. I actually read the introduction already but was disappointed; I would rather have seen scriptural comparisons instead of analyzing the reformers themselves. I believe we have covered extensively the issue of faith and works; from a Christian perspective one must believe before one does something (acts). The rich you ruler believed but was not willing to put Christ first in his life.
We have also discussed the book of James as well; James was comparing someone who SAID they had faith and someone who TRULY had faith. A presumptuous faith is not faith at all.
Now, has any Pope ever denied that Christ has come in the flesh? Ever? ??????????????????????????
YES! The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Jesus took on the nature of Mary who Rome erroneously teaches that she was without sin; therefore implying that Jesus has a different FLESH than we do!
Rome did not give us the canon as many catholic claim. It was the Eastern Orthodox Church that came up with the list of twenty-seven books first. The consensus by the Eastern Church was decided in 367, and the twenty-seven books were included in Athanasius’ Easter letter from Alexandria. This decision was made twenty six years BEFORE Hippo.
I will review your comments later this afternoon.
[Paul, to Timothy]
But continue thou in the things which you have learned and have been assured of, knowing of whom you have learned them; And that from a child you have known the holy scriptures WHICH ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS. [my emphasis]
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly equipped unto all good works.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scripture is clear that the Bible IS all we need in order to be saved and walk with the Lord. There is NOT ONE WORD in the Bible about popes, the Magestrium, RC tradition, etc. To say anyone must be a RC to be a Christian, to be a part of the Body of Christ, is gross distortion of the scriptures.
Quoting taj1:
"to slander the Catholic Church is to blaspheme the Body of Christ"
Do you really believe this? Do you really believe Roman Catholics are "the Body of Christ"? Because this is not what the Bible teaches. The Bible teaches that all who have committed their lives to Jesus are of the Body of Christ. The Body of Christ is not comprised of any one group of people; it IS comprised of those who have been born again by His Spirit and are walking in fellowship with Him each day.
Do you really think it's slander to question Roman Catholic beliefs and doctrine which contradict what the scriptures say?
Remember the Catholic Church decided the Canon of the New Testament
People who spew venom at the Catholic Church need to think long and hard about what they are doing, because to slander the Catholic Church is to blaspheme the Body of Christ. If you are one of these people, pray about it, ask yourself why you believe what you believe, and find out for sure whether or not things you believe about the Catholic Church are true, using unbiased resources (including true Catholic ones). Please.
The Church that proclaims not only did Messiah come in the first century, but that He comes at each and every Catholic Mass -- in the flesh (it is Protestants who deny this!) -- and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead?
Is the Church that has proclaimed the Gospel for two millennia; the Church that gave us Sacred Scripture; the Church that defined the dogma of the Trinity; the Church that defeated the heresies of Arianism, Pelagianism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Sabellianism, and Manichæanism; the Church that has produced thousands and thousands of Saints -- from St. Francis to Maximillian Kolbe to Thérèse de Lisieux.
Now, has any Pope ever denied that Christ has come in the flesh? Ever?
Acts,
Matthew 16:18-19
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
1 John 2:22
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."
1 John 4:3
"And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."
Online4Him,
It was meant for you, get the book because it justifies the Catholic position using only scripture - if you seriously believe that the Catholic Church can't defend itself using scripture then it is worth buying. On Amazon the person gave 2 examples:
1) Did Christ tell the rich young ruler to believe something, or to *do* something in order to be saved?
2) The Protestant supposes that the word "justified" means something different in James than elsewhere in the Bible, rather than letting Scripture interpret Scripture. There's a reason why Luther didn't like this Epistle: he couldn't wedge it into his "faith alone" model.
Truthandjustice1,
Was your last comment for me? If so, I appreciate your suggestion and recommendation; however, the scriptures themselves have proven more reliable than anything else that has crossed my path. I have yet to be confounded in regards to what other traditions have stated; maybe because I am just personally used to having scriptural evidence to support my doctrinal positions.
In my last comment, I used scriptural passages that talk about what is still yet FUTURE. These passages are not speaking of the past.
yes the anti christ will declare himself as god, but he will also have sitting beside him the false prophet. which will be a new pope.
man, you have