Having met at a Virginia AA meeting in 1997, two women fell in what they thought was "love," entered in to a "civil union" and then decided to "start a family." One has to wonder if the AA philosophy of "your higher power can be a rock, a tree, or 'the group [AA] itself" had anything to do with the attraction of woman to woman, One certainly is reminded of the Paul's societal analysis of the Romans of his day who evidently had a somewhat similar culture to what we are now witnessing here. I quote from the King James Version. Other translations are equally affirmative of the problem:
16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Well, the miracle occurred and God evidently rescued one of the participants, Lisa Miller" from this unholy union. She became a born again Christian, renounced her former lesbian addiction (her words).
Lisa Miller is the woman who gave birth to the child of the union conceived by in vitro fertizilization (i.e. from what had to be a male sperm donor fertilizing her egg -- to the best of my present knowledge 'cloning' has not reached a point of perfection to explain it nor do newspaper accounts indicate that it was her partner's egg fertilized and implanted in her.
Lisa Miller had a right and a sacred duty to be concerned about her daughter's soul and eternal destiny. All of us who are parents have such a burden. She gave her daughter visitation with her former partner in the 'civil union' she renounced. However, her partner attempted continued corruption of the child by reading her pro-lesbian literature such as "Heather has two mommies." She also reportedly took baths with the child. A bath with a child may not be so startling normally with a woman bathing a child; however, when we have an admittedly sexual attraction to females, it takes on a new connotation entirely.
From Virginia originally, Lisa Miller and her "partner" lived in Vermont. Vermont has long since legalized same sex marriage.
The Commonwealth of Virginia does not recognize same sex marriages. Lisa fled there and went to work for Liberty Baptist Academy, a school affiliated with Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell).
Lisa fled Vermont to return to Virginia. Her former "civil partner" fought for increased visitation and custody in the Vermont courts. The Virginia courts ruled that the Vermont court had jurisdiction, something probably legally correct.
The Vermont court certain had very different ideas than I hold about the "best interest of a child." Because her birth mother was now teaching her traditional views of marriage and family and eternal consequences of violating very plain biblical teachings on same, the court ruled that this was grounds to strip her of custody and give sole custody to the "other mommy" who would affirm the "gay lifestyle" in which the child was originally conceived.
No room for conversion here, so the Vermont court evidently opined.
Mother did what we may all have to do before this battle is over -- she fled. Those who helped her in what is appearing to becoming an "underground railroad" for Christians are hunted by the FBI, USA agents and Interpol.
Personally, I never thought I would live long enough to see those who believed marriage should be between a man and a woman characterized as "radical." Theosophist, League of Nations' leader Salvador de Madariage (Javier Solana's grandfather / cousin / great uncle, whatever) referred to homosexual practices as "buggery" and condemned it. Even L. Ronald Hubbard (founder of Dianetics / Scientology) claimed his methods could "cure homosexuality".
Suddenly, so many prominent views from the President on down "are evolving" and thousands of years of traditional belief are scrapped. Suddenly we have a society where morality is turned upside down on its very head -- or is it "bottom."
Pray for Lisa Miller. Pray for her daughter. Pray for the conversion of all caught in this dreadful, unhealthy trap of "same sex marriage" and "civil unions." Pray for the conversion of Lisa Miller's former partner who has now "remarried" still another apparent female victim.
Pray that those attending AA meetings to receive help for substance abuse issues not take so literally their belief that their "higher power" can be "a rock, a tree, the group, -- 'God however we conceive him to be."
So many times as I researched the New Age issues over the years, this is how lesbian addictions developed. The gals attended meetings on legitimate issues (equal pay for equal work), then explored 'root causes,' then decided the root cause was "patriarchy" (short hand for "God the Father). They then obviously scrapped "The Lord's Prayer" of "Our Father which art in Heaven" and went for 'matriarchal religions,' such as Wicca and/or (as did Lisa Miller and her former partner) Unitarianism, Unity. Reading those accounts, the woman would recount that they were at those meetings and for the first time in their lives, the woman across the room started "looking good to them."
Extremely perilous and dangerous times are here. Jesus warned us that when we saw these things come upon the earth to know that our redemption was near --- even at the door. I frankly don't know how much worse it can get, but I thought before it couldn't get much worse but it has. How much longer until the Scriptures are condemned as "hate literature" for warnings such as those given by the Apostle Paul?
May the Lord help us all!
Stay tuned.
CONSTANCE
517 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 517 of 517"but you have't proved that the church of Christ is synonymous with the church of Rome."
Jesus was talking to Peter, not John Wesley.
You have not been able to prove that Sola Scriptura is mandated in scripture.
Christine,
"that the canon at issue is EXPLICIT in contradiction to what they say, and that they were of late date from the time when Rome began to get too big for its britches and make such claims."
Can you please cite this canon.
St. Cyril and Methodius, date back to the early days of the church.
But that’s not at all what Pope Honorius did. Even a quick review of the records shows he simply decided not to make a decision at all.
But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the pope is infallible in not defining a doctrine.
I used to buy the Fatima thing, as an evangelical and later as Orthodox, but frankly there is nothing in it that any smart person whether deceiving spirit, alien, or whatever, couldn't cobble together from previous visions, Biblical catastrophe and calls to repentance writings, and a shrewd understanding of world trends.
Celestial Secrets is a book that goes into previously sealed records of the investigation of it, and frankly I suspect it was a fraud, one helped by peculiar technology, and had similarities to the UFO phenomenon.
Francisco, the farthest from being affected by it, saw a HEADLESS woman in the tree, and the first appearance of the woman who only later claimed to be the Virgin Mary, was wearing knee length skirt and earrings, like someone unused to the dress code there did an oops.
detail on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIgOWCGUX0A
"You have not been able to prove that Sola Scriptura is mandated in scripture."
Please take the trouble to read a debate that you enter. The argument for sola scriptura has been given repeatedly further back in this thread. If you want a constructive dialogue, please criticise that.
"You have not been able to prove that Sola Scriptura is mandated in scripture."
There is a place in The Prophets where God says, "to the Law and to the Testimony, if they do not speak according to these there is no light in them."
Any tradition that is contrary to the totality of Scripture on the subject incl. context, is false. Any tradition that is consistent with it or not opposing it is likely correct.
Now, sola scriptura really boils down to sola what calvin or his heirs and assigns says scripture means. When I applied sola scriptura consistently, I ended up Eastern Orthodox from a position originally more like the radically anti RC fundie and I am not the only one to tread this path.
sola scriptura people usually reject blessed objects and relics, yet ignore the blessed cloths an Apostle sent around (in Acts) and the fact that the bones of Elisha brought a dead man back to life.
St. Paul does refer to information given by word of mouth by him to his hearers, but you can be sure it was nothing conflicting with his written words.
Papal infallibility and supremacy weren't even on the radar in Apostolic or earlier church days, and didn't start to rear its ugly head until several centuries later.
Dear 7:54 PM you said: The Mass and sacraments are an encounter with Christ, that strengthens and renews us. They are not man-made but were established by Christ......This was in place long before any Protestant came along.......Catholicism is just MORE Christianity. Wow. If what you say is true, then why didn't Jesus have the 12 (then 11) doing all those things your church prescribes--back then? Right then and there? Jesus' walk on earth (He is the sacrament---please note that in His sinless life, death, burial, & resurrection) while with His disciples, showed them all they (and us) needed to believe to have eternal life, to be with Him. No pre-pre-scibed anything your church espouses. The thief on the cross next to Jesus repented and believed and what did he hear from Jesus? (please read the Scriptures themselves-Luke 23 as the authority). The thief could not jump down from that cross and go "do" one good deed or "perform" a "sacrament" as you call it. There is no "more" needed than Jesus Himself. When your life and mine shine and show Christ as our life-by Grace are you saved by faith and not works lest any man should boast (eph 2)...not "religious prescribed rituals" then we are living the "more". More surrender to Christ's Holy Spirit is not more ritual. The Holy Spirit (Who indwells the believer not the "worker") renews and strengthens---Religion tires and drains---ask any "recovering catholic" or recovering anyone "religious" for that matter (I know many!). It takes a lot of pride (sin) to believe that much in ourselves instead of God. I needed Christ's Forgiveness and received it because I repented and believed in His Work of Grace and Mercy as Savior and Lord, not works I have done. When I was saved it was much more than an "encounter". And justified now by His Blood....as I walk with Him, my faith (over and over again) is renewed as I am humbled (as a child) and beautifully challenged by how Awesomely Complex the Riches of the Person Christ Jesus really are. That, my dear friend, is the Enough and the More of Jesus my Lord.
Ritual abuse of children is hardly ever done just for kicks. In most cases it is part of a plot. It is impossible to exert "mind control" on psychologically healthly people, despite nonsense on the Web about behavior-influencing rays. But by torturing children horribly in systematic ways from soon after birth then certain people have learned, since World War 2, how to systematically induce multiple personality syndrome and program the alters to give a "Manchurian Candidate" or someone who will do whatever they have been programmed to do upon receipt of a keyword. A person like this believes absolutely that to go against the programming is to re-experience inwardly the pain of the torture - inconceivable. Any attempt by psychotherapists to undo it is likely to lead to the reporting by other alters of the therapist to a person's controllers, and to triggering of alters programmed to suicide.
Documentation - the "Greenbaum Speech" by D.C. Hammond, given about 20 years ago by a pioneer psychologist in this field (easily found online by googling), and recently the book Healing The Unimaginable by Alison Miller available thru Amazon. Hammond and Miller are secular psychologists and if you accept the reality of the demonic then that is a further complicating factor.
See also the website by a survivor who escaped called Svali. She points out that the FBI initially didn't believe in the Mafia either.
Whatever they call themselves, these are the real Illuminati. They are familial in character. Their aim is to put such people in place in all hierarchies of worldly power across the globe and then, presumably by cascading trigger words down their hierarchy, to take over in a few days at every level of the body politic. I have no idea how largely this plot will feature in the endtime scenario but I am convinced of the truth of all this. And it is almost impossible to tell who is who. Your mayor, pastor, Representative, local police chief, might be involved, or might not. At this level of evil, there is nothing to do but trust in God and obey him. I mean Jesus Christ of Nazareth who is come in the flesh and His Father who created the human race, and no other.
Dr. Jacques Vallee- Astrophysicist and long-time UFO investigator- wrote of the similarities between those "Virgin Mary Apparitions" and UFO visitations. I read two of his books in the early 80's which were relevant to this subject: Messengers of Deception and The Invisible College. Very eye-opening stuff. Vallee was portrayed in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" by Francois Truffaut.
Guillermo
Anonymous 1:06 PM
AMEN !
Very well said.
Thank you.
Anonymous 1:18 PM ,
Amen to your comment as well.
I was thinking as I was reading your comment that right now everyone is flocking to go to the cinema to see the "Bourne Legacy", the latest installment of the "Bourne" movies. The point of all these movies is that they give us a glimpse into the world of brainwashed killing and spying "machines" that are the special op's of the American military. Jason Bourne is a guy who is trying to figure out what happened to make him the way he is now.
It's just the modern updated version of The Manchurian Candidate.
If they were doing those things in the 1940's, how much more efficient are the techniques now ?
Using sleep deprivation, it wouldn't really take any more that three or four days to reduce a person to
emotional and mental putty.
Anon@6:51 a.m.
None of those responses refuted anything. The question was where does scripture mandate sola scriptura as the only rule of faith.
Christine,
What I meant by Sola Scriptura is the idea that scripture is self-explanatory. If this were the case then no church would have Bible studies or ministers to interpret scriptures.
I have to disagree with your views on the role of Peter in the early church.
"None of those responses refuted anything. The question was where does scripture mandate sola scriptura as the only rule of faith."
It doesn't, and I'm delighted that you evidently know holy scripture well enough to know this fact (or you wouldn't have asked!)
Here, copying and pasting from higher up the thread, is the argument for sola scriptura:
The tradition in which to read the New Testament is the Old Testament. Jesus was a Jew who lived in a monotheistic culture forged by and recorded in the Old Testament. And no church tradition is needed to make sense of the Old Testament, because it is not about the church. The Old Testament builds upon itself from the Creation onward, an event for which there is no context. So neither Old nor New Testament needs an extra-biblical tradition to interpret it. Jesus regarded the scriptures of his day as uniquely authoritative over Jewish traditions, and His precedent is good enough.
Anon@1:06 p.m.
I am afraid you do not understand my views. The early church that gave you the canon of scripture did hold to the sacraments. Read the Apostolic Fathers of the first, two centuries for yourself.
And learn how to interpret scripture correctly.
There are thousands of denominations all invoking God for their conflicting doctrines.
"There are thousands of denominations all invoking God for their conflicting doctrines."
That's a common half-truth. Here are the facts:
1. There are not thousands, there are a few hundred. The figure of thousands is quoted by shoddy scholars who fail to trace the claim back to its source, the World Christian Encyclopedia compiled by David Barrett in 1982. Its second edition (Oxford Univ Press, 2001) refers to 33000+ total Christian denominations, but it defines the word ‘denomination’ as an organised Christian group within a specific country. That is an eccentric use of the word, because denominations run across national borders. As there are several hundred countries (and as smaller denominations are not represented in all of them) we should divide the figure of 25,000 by about 100. This gives a few hundred genuine denominations, consistent with the list recorded in Wikipedia. Only if you call the Roman Catholic church in Canada a different denomination from the Roman Catholic church in the USA (for example) can you consistently maintain this number.
2. Denominations increase generally as a result of personal fallings-out within a hierarchy, leading to one hierarchy splintering into two; disputes over scripture are secondary.
3. If we went back not to one hierarchy, as Rome would like, but NO hierarchy above congregations, each congregation governed by an internal council of episkopoi, so that the church consisted simply a congregations in each place, then problem 2 would go away. That is what happened when communism descended over China: the denominations were cut off from their hierarchies, and the result has been a tremendous church movement that does not waste time in interdenominational bickering.
Anon@6:39 p.m.
Judaism held to both the Torah and the Misnah and did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura.
If sola scriptura is not mandated in scripture, then it's extra biblical.
Jesus never rejected Apostolic tradition, only the misuse of it.
In Matthew "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it" (Mat 23:2).
Jesus also never had a book called the NT. Early Bibles both Old and New were hand- written.
Nobody could own a personal copy before the invention of the printing press.
This means that people did not read the Bible by themselves, and relied on extra-biblical interpretation.
Further more everybody reads scripture through the lens of their respective churches.
This means you are already reading someone else's interpretation.
"Judaism held to both the Torah and the Misnah and did not subscribe to Sola Scriptura."
Um, Torah means literally "teaching" but among Jews it in practice refers to the Pentateuch, ie to Mosaic Law, which is scripture. And Mishnah did not exist for many centuries after that.
"If sola scriptura is not mandated in scripture, then it's extra biblical."
Well done. Try engaging with the argument for SS at 6.39pm, rather than avoiding it.
"Jesus never rejected Apostolic tradition, only the misuse of it."
I'm sure he conformed to many Jewish traditions, but that does not mean that it was required of him. If I go one weekend to a church where they have a tradition of handing out sweets after the service, I'll take a sweet, but it does not mean I have to, nor that other congregations should.
"Early Bibles both Old and New were hand- written. Nobody could own a personal copy before the invention of the printing press. This means that people did not read the Bible by themselves, and relied on extra-biblical interpretation."
Monasteries had copies, and kings. but aren't you forgetting that in ancient Israel a good amount of scripture was actually the law of the land, and you were expected to know it then just as much as people are today. Deuteronomy commanded that it be read out to all the people every 7 years. In Jesus' day the rabbis debated scripture minutely. The Church of Rome could and should have made every effort to get the NT into the people likewise, but by medieval times it was doing its utmost to do the opposite. Please read up the thread for the quotes from its own documents.
Anon@7:14 p.m.
There are both denominational and non-denonminational Protestants.
I disagree with your solutions, since what you describe was fluid not rigid, with roles being interchangeable.
They became fixed by the 2nd century.
Furthermore Sola Scriptura is still going to end in division, simply because it relies on private interpretation against the correct interpretation of scripture, and tradition.
It results in either doctrinal liberalism or doctrinal fundamentalism.
Christine and me have also tasted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We are not going back to something lesser.
Anon@7:36 p.m.
Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.
These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs.
Monasteries had copies, but they did not have copiers, fax machines, computers or printers.
We must remember that each Bible had to be copied by hand and that it took many years of a monk working behind the walls of a monestary, called a scriptorium to do this.
Each Bible was made on vellum (sheep hide), it took 250 sheep and 1000's of hours to make every Bible.
It was simply not possible for everybody to own a Bible.
The faith was handed down through oral teaching and through visual arts.
The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13).
St. Francis De Sales wrote letters to the reformers when they were fighting over doctrinal divisions. He told them these divisions would only increase. He was right.
Sola Scripture is self-refuting.
Dear anon 6:47, I do understand your views and find them extraneous. {Mass and saints and extra-biblical works and popes and absolutions and sprinklings and (bells and smells) on and on and on and.............}......Why would I lean on my own (Proverbs 3:5-6) understanding, or yours, or even early church fathers-when I have Jesus Christs' Own Words as my rule of faith? And His Holy Spirit indwelling me as my Teacher? The Spirit of God bears witness to the Truth I need to live as a redeemed soul empowered from on high for living this earthly life following my Lord. [As one beggar telling another beggar where to find Bread (of life-Jesus Himself]. (Please refer to John 14:16,17,23-26 and see for yourself--the Scripture Alone-God-Breathed is Enough. It was Enough for Jesus therefore Enough for me too. Matthew 4:4). God needs no "help" being God. Therein lies your trouble with the Finished Work of Jesus' Death on the Cross Alone to save you. I believe His Sacrifice enough. Your church thinks itself righteous enough to add to His Beautiful Atonement with it's "religious hoops" to go through? He died there Alone. And now this conversation is enough on the subject.....
I'll post again - the true understanding of sola Scriptura:
http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=19&var3=main
It's not 'every man and his Bible'.
Dorothy,
Have you been able to reach Constance at all lately?
Anon.
"Sola Scriptura is still going to end in division, simply because it relies on private interpretation against the correct interpretation of scripture, and tradition."
What you call private interpretation, I call conscience. Do you agree with Gregory XVI, who in Mirari Vos (1832, para 14) condemned freedom of conscience as an “absurd and erroneous proposition?
"The Church has been guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption (John 14:25-26, 16:13)."
And given that the scriptural view of freedom of conscience was replaced by the unscriptural one that heretics should be tortured and burned, this proves that the organization which did that was not the true church, whatever it called itself.
"each Bible had to be copied by hand and that it took many years of a monk working behind the walls of a monestary, called a scriptorium to do this. Each Bible was made on vellum (sheep hide), it took 250 sheep and 1000's of hours to make every Bible. It was simply not possible for everybody to own a Bible."
True, but it was possible in a similar situation in ancient Israel for every person to know a large amount of the scripture of the time, because it comprised the law of the land. And a certain carpenter's son obviously managed to learn the entire OT by heart. What if a carpenter's son had wanted to learn the NT by heart in medieval Western Europe? Council of Toulouse (1229): "Lay people are not permitted to possess the books of the Old and New Testament". Rules on Prohibited Books approved in 1564 following the Council of Trent (and a century after printing had been invented): "Since it is clear from experience that if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good, the matter is in this respect left to the judgment of the bishop or inquisitor, who may with the advice of the pastor or confessor permit the reading of the Sacred Books translated into the vernacular by Catholic authors to those who they know will derive from such reading no harm but rather an increase of faith and piety, which permission they must have in writing. Those, however, who presume to read or possess them without such permission may not receive absolution from their sins till they have handed them over to the ordinary." The bull Unigenitus of 1713 condemned the proposition (no.80) that "The reading of Sacred Scripture is for all."
"Christine and me have also tasted the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We are not going back to something lesser."
I have had the privilege of taking Catholic communion on an occasion when somebody's spiritual life was at stake and the Catholic priest said that this was permitted. I prayed that any difference should be made clear to me at that time. None was.
If I could, I would take communion with my Catholic friends whenever I attend a Mass with them, eg at a Catholic wedding or funeral, just as they are welcome at protestant communions. I don't take it anonymously but I sometimes ask the priest privately beforehand if I may, and sometimes a priest has said yes. That my question puts him on the spot with his hierarchy is not my problem; he is my brother in Christ and I am his.
citing the canon about Rome
"Canon XXVIII.
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ROYAL CITY. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of
Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."
https://sites.google.com/site/canonsoc/home/canons-of-the-ecumenical-councils/council-of-chalcedon-451-1
Note that it says THE FATHER granted special status to the Roman bishopric, not that it was so from the get go.
Anon@4:38 a.m.
These charges have been answered in previous posts and clarified.
There are thousands of wanna-be popes invoking God for their conflicting doctrines, which unlike the Pope's cover everything.
Anon@4:51 a.m.
These charges have also been answered in previous posts.
Anon@4:58 a.m
Catholics and Orthodox do not approach communion the way Protestants do.
I don't know why people want to receive things they disagree with, such as transubstantiation, and the Mass.
Communion is a public act of affirmation that you are in full communion and agree with the church.
"I don't know why people want to receive things they disagree with, such as transubstantiation, and the Mass. Communion is a public act of affirmation that you are in full communion and agree with the church."
That's your view of communion, but mine is about sharing a sacrament with other believers in Christ, which I gladly acknowledge Catholics are. For me the unity in Christ exceeds any differences with Catholics about whether it is a sacrifice. I don't find it a problem either that I don't believe in transubstantiation and, when I have been permitted Catholic communion, the guy next to me does believe it - why should I? I'll discuss it with him afterwards if he's interested in my views.
"These charges have been answered in previous posts and clarified."
To whose satisfaction? You have ducked the question, so here it is again: "Do you agree with Gregory XVI, who in Mirari Vos (1832, para 14) condemned freedom of conscience [eg private interpretation of scripture] as an “absurd and erroneous proposition"?"
Anon@12:09 p.m.
The difference is that the mass is not private prayer, its public worship. If everybody does their own thing, it destroys unity on essentials for. Example the mass is the same for everybody. You adapt to it. Forcing it to adapt to you , is like asking god to worship you, rather than the way around.
Anon@12:14 p.m.
I explained the difference between informed conscience and misuse of conscience.
Scripture itself opposes private interpretation taken to the level of doctrine.
It can be held, but cannot be considered binding on whole church. Doctrines are binding, opinions are not.
http://www.statesmanjournal.com/viewart/20120821/ENT/120821010/Holograms-present-celebs-new-afterlife-issues-?odyssey=nav%7Chead
Constance,
Everything you researced and wrote about 30 years ago is becoming a reality. I remember specifically the chapter you devoted to holography in "A Planned Deception". I just had to share this with you. I noticed there were also holograms used in the closing ceremonies of the summer olympics.
John Rupp,
I didn't see the entire closing ceremony, but my children did. Please share your observations about the holograms.
Anon.
"The difference is that the mass is not private prayer, its public worship. If everybody does their own thing, it destroys unity on essentials for. Example the mass is the same for everybody. You adapt to it. Forcing it to adapt to you , is like asking god to worship you, rather than the way around."
Yes indeed, I DO adapt to it when a Catholic priest whom I ask tells me that I may partake. I am forced to adapt, because I agree with only some of the concepts involved in a Catholic Mass. But the unity in Christ is enough. We are one in Christ, not one in Rome. Which is greater?
"Doctrines are binding, opinions are not."
When and how does an opinion become a doctrine? And what do you mean by binding, ie if someone believes that God is Trinity and that Jesus is both wholly God and wholly man, crucified died and risen, yet differs on lesser matters which you define as doctrine, how should the church react?
The chapter in Planned Deception on holography is worthless - but only because Constance took seriously the word of New Age crazies talking hot air, rather than scientists, about what it actually is. In fact it is a purely scientific and technological way to create images which means that you can now have, in effect, a cinema without a screen. I have made holograms myself as part of my undergraduate training, and studied the scientific theory involved. There is nothing occult about it. Like any piece of technology it can be used to ends that are good, bad or morally neutral.
Physicist
Anon@6:45
I have seen the results of the unity in Christ in Protestantism, which is endless division.
The early church did hold that teachings on the Eucharist were essential to unity, because it is the body of Christ.
Anon@6:54 p.m.
The Eucharist is not a lesser matter. It's the source and summit of the faith.
If you want to define what is lesser or greater, then that's fine. It just won't be held by the church.
You: "I have seen the results of the unity in Christ in Protestantism, which is endless division."
Please do not preach this until you have taken the plank out of your own eye and healed your own disunity with the Eastern Orthodox.
Me: "I DO adapt to [the Eucharist] when a Catholic priest whom I ask tells me that I may partake... because I agree with only some of the concepts involved in a Catholic Mass. But the unity in Christ is enough. We are one in Christ, not one in Rome. Which is greater?"
You: "The Eucharist is not a lesser matter. It's the source and summit of the faith. If you want to define what is lesser or greater, then that's fine. It just won't be held by the church."
And if you want to define "the church" as a particular subset of believers in Christ then you may, but it won't be held by the rest of us who know and love Jesus Christ (and our Catholic brethren). Please answer my question.
"Immaculate conception is the concept that God preserved Mary, from original sin, ahead of time.
But this was manifested at her conception."
say WHAT? she didn't exist before her conception so how could something happen "ahead of time" and be manifested at her conception? pre existence of souls is a condemned false doctrine.
"Jesus would have been at war with his mother otherwise."
"war" doesn't have to be as intense as the word war implies, but two events show something like this did occur. When He stayed behind at the Temple and BOTH parents were all worried and scolded Him when they found Him, and later when ALL His family are reported to be out to sieze Him because He was thought to be insane.
"To say she was only the mother of his human nature, goes back to Nestorianism, because she is the mother of the man-God Jesus Christ, not just one part of him, since these two natures are not separable."
Wrong again. Mary is the mother of Christ's divine nature ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT SHE IS MOTHER TO WHAT CAME OUT OF HER WOMB, but that divine nature preexisted her, and was not itself conceived in her womb but entered it. Only the human nature was conceived in her womb, the Incarnation at the moment of conception, BUT BOTH CAME OUT OF HER WOMB BECAUSE CHRIST'S HUMAN AND DIVINE NATURES ARE INSEPARABLE.
you imply that He got His divine nature from her as well as His human nature? And you base this on the Immaculate Conception?
If she is the new Eve she is ONLY the new Eve, and Eve was NEVER divine only human but without sin before she sinned.
"St. Cyril and Methodius, date back to the early days of the church."
Wrong. they were born in the 9th century. Early church is not just any pre schism date, it is first 400 or maybe 500 years.
"private interpretation." Everyone is apparently wrong in applying this verse, because look at context. NO PROPHECY CAME BY PRIVATE INTERPRETATION.
When we say interpretation we mean interpreting or understanding something already given by God. What is translated "private interpretation" cannot refer to that, because in that context it is used to refer to prophesying, that no prophesying came by the will and choice and intellect of man but strictly from God's Holy Spirit.
Now, "in a multitude of counsellors there is safety" or something like that in Proverbs. When you have a large body of men devoted to Scripture and steeped in it, without preset biases about whether something is RC correct or baptist correct or not, but only, is this what is in Scripture ALL of it not just one or two verses out of context, and is this teaching what was transmitted to us by men who are themselves only a few generations of instruction removed from the Apostles, whose first teachers in this lineage were Apostles and bishops appointed by them in churches Apostles founded, then you are going to have correct interpretation.
As centuries pass, one must always dismiss accumulated ideas and check back with earlier teaching and the Scripture, in case some errors have crept in.
"The chapter in Planned Deception on holography is worthless - but only because Constance took seriously the word of New Age crazies talking hot air, rather than scientists, about what it actually is. In fact it is a purely scientific and technological way to create images which means that you can now have, in effect, a cinema without a screen. I have made holograms myself as part of my undergraduate training, and studied the scientific theory involved. There is nothing occult about it."
Physicist you totally miss the point. It is not occult but can be used to CREATE AN ILLUSION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF AN EVENT which is to the advantage of occultists.
I doubt the liklihood this could in practice be done very well, it would require reliable cloud cover to do it, and the aluminum barium presence due to chemtrailing (don't bother to argue with me, these have been found in ground under chemtrails and the chemtrail DOES NOT RESEMBLE ANYTHING I SAW GROWING UP IN THE 1960s or even 1970s)
is not enough to do the job either.
So while it is not worthless material, it is dubious as to practicality, but the very fact that someone would WANT to do such a thing as fake the Second Coming shows how evil they are.
Taking communion is not merely a public statement of agreement. IT IS EATING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
The issue is, are these present outside of EO or not? Another issue is, IF they are present, then your partaking of it with those who harbor various errors as part of their public teaching and doctrine would tend to be a bad example of apparent agreement with the errors to others. I suppose you could say, I agree this is the Body and Blood of Christ Whom I seek, but not necessarily that everything taught by this church is correct. But how many make such a pronouncement at the communion, and would they not be turned away if they did?
In Communion you EAT JESUS, not each other. However, that raises issues of is He present in a given communion service outside of EO or RC and if so how much, and from my perspective as EO, how much is He present in the RC and why bother since I have EO? I think He is present in RC but I don't want to give assent to RC errors.
"you totally miss the point. It [holography] is not occult but can be used to CREATE AN ILLUSION TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF AN EVENT which is to the advantage of occultists."
Christine, have you read Constance's chapter on holography, and what the New Agers are reported as saying there about it? From that chapter you would never guess it is not occult.
Also, you cannot create a holographic illusion without a great amount of preparation and apparatus and only then in a restricted space. Moreover, because of the amount of preparation needed, the hologram is not going to be able to react to what you do. And you can toss pebbles through it, which some might regard as a clue...
Physicist
"the aluminum barium presence due to chemtrailing (don't bother to argue with me, these have been found in ground under chemtrails and the chemtrail DOES NOT RESEMBLE ANYTHING I SAW GROWING UP IN THE 1960s or even 1970s) is not enough to do the job"
I'm not arguing with you, I'm debunking you for the sake of Constance's readers. In our earlier discussions you failed to provide any credible evidence for chemical enrichment on the ground beneath so-called chemtrails.
"Taking communion... IS EATING THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST."
Please reconcile that with the commands in Mosaic Law (still binding on Jews at the Last Supper) not to drink blood, reasserted to gentile believers at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts.
Do Roman Catholics ever read from the Revelations of John in the mass ?
_Just curious
To anon 6:25
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/08/13/freddie-mercurys-hologram-duets-with-jessie-j-at-olympics-closing-ceremony/
This is just one of the holograms presented on stage at the closing ceremonies of the olympics.
Dear Paul,
In the course of about three years, the entire Bible is read during the portion of the Mass called the "Liturgy of the Word" -including the Book of Revelation.
At the Sunday Mass, after the opening prayers, the First Reading is from the Old Testament. This is followed by the Psalms which are chanted/sung at the Church where I attend Mass.
Next comes the Second Reading which is from the New Testament. When it comes time for passages from the Book of Revelations to be read, they are read during the Second Reading.
After the Second Reading comes the reading of the Gospel which consists of a passage from the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John depending on which is scheduled to be read according to the cycle of readings.
Another thing to note is that the Second Reading from the New Testament is coordinated with passages from the Old Testament.
i hope I have satisfactorily answered your question. :-)
Dorothy, JD, Susanna:
Has anyone heard from, or talked with, Constance lately?
Constance was a great attorney for us this past March and we were hoping to use her services again now, but we've been unable to reach her. We're just praying everything is well with her and the family.
It looks like her last post was on 8-9-12.
Catherine
Yes, thank you Susanna.
Paul
re eating Body and Blood of Christ vs. Mosaic and Apostolic rules against drinking or eating blood - that's easy.
All the times this is mentioned the context is dead animals. That you can kill and eat flesh but pour out the blood to God. Notice the blood source is always DEAD.
But Jesus Christ is ALIVE.
chemical poisoning not enrichment just get off your lazy ass and go to youtube. there put "what in the world are they spraying" and "why in the world are they spaying," in search and you will find all the evidence you need. the second film gets to that stuff before the first does.
"chemical poisoning not enrichment just get off your lazy ass and go to youtube."
Don't you realise how pathological your behavior is? Suppose you meet someone in a bar and they make an unusual and interesting claim and you say you are interested but would like some evidence. In response, instead of providing evidence they tell you sharply to get off your ass and go hunt it yourself. Perhaps you might agree that this is not a very good way to persuade people.
I presume that you are responding to my request for evidence by insulting me because you don't have any.
Physicist
So it's OK to tap the blood of cattle and drink it Christine?
Christine,
RE: your post at 2:53pm.
For the life of me, I do not understand why you feel the need towards vulgarity in your comments. Your points will be taken much more seriously when both seasoned with a bit of grace and without the banality. One can engage in discourse, even in discussions in which one feels especially passionate, without resorting to these unnecessary vulgarities, and yet still make the intended point/s.
This sort of thing does little to engender civil, polite discourse; and, more importantly, as a professing Christian, this does not set a proper example.
I certainly don’t say this as a ‘holier than thou’ sort of thing as I myself have been guilty of same when I allow my anger to get the best of me on occasion - blurted out in the heat of the moment in verbal discourse (as opposed to written). It’s a product of my BC (before Christ) days when my language was somewhat frequently punctuated with such, although that’s certainly not a good excuse. However, you won't see me doing this sort of thing with the written word as I have the time to choose my words more carefully before hitting the "Publish Your Comment" button.
Perhaps you could exercise similar restraint. Perhaps you could benefit from a fresh reading of Ephesians 4:29-32 and Galatians 5:16-26 may be in order.
Christine,
I notice that at the very first of all the Councils, in Acts 15:29 that in the Orthodox Church of the East Bible translation by G.M. Lamsa, the Apostles said simply "That you abstain from sacrifices offered to idols, and from blood. and from animals strangled and from fornication "_etc.
And that my trusty KJV says, "That you abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication:"...etc
It really doesn't sound as complex as you're making it. Abstain from blood, Period. Okey, in terms of eating / ingesting, no blood. No blood in the diet.
Blood is not kosher ever.
Anon@4:47 a.m.
The schism has to be healed from both sides Catholic and Orthodox.
We do hold the Orthodox are a legitimate church and can therefore receive communion in the RC church.In fact the only ones who can do so.
From the Catholic perspective, we are in union with the Orthodox. The Greeks refuse to recognize this, which is a different story.
Whatever the divisions, they do not amount to the ones in Protestantism.
We make a distinction between visible church and the invisible church which consists of Protestants as well.
We just do not see this as a complete picture, since the body of Christ has to be BOTH, just as Christ is both man and God, without separation.
It's not what my or your definition of church is both it's what's God's definition of church is.
If the church is the body of Christ, then it's BOTH visible like the body and invisible like the soul, but in full union.
May God bless you as you continue to seek his will.
Christine,
I never said Christ got his divine nature from his mother or that Mary was divine.
But Christ was sinless in his human nature as well.
Adam and Eve were created without sin, but they were not divine,
I also do not hold to the pre-existence of souls, merely that God is not a slave to time. That Mary was saved by the merits of God, not of her own.
It's like if it was not for the grace of God, I would have committed the worst sins, but the grace of God kept me from doing this.
In the same way the grace of God kept Mary free from sin.
Christine,
Have you read the Council of Chalcedon in full.
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, where over 500 Eastern bishops address Pope Leo the Great and declare:
“Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head (i.e., the Pope) also fulfill what is fitting for the children (i.e., the other bishops)." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and
foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (i.e., PATRIARCH Dioscorus of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness" --Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3.
According to the Ecumenical Council of Chalecedon, a Pope of Rome has the right and the power to excommunicate a patriarch (in this case, the Patriarch of Alexandria).
This same canon of Chalcedon also says that Peter is the Rock of the Church.
Rome was not royal because of it's political status, but because it was the seat of Peter.
Unless you are saying that the council is contradicting itself on this issue.
St. Cyril and Methodius were simply stating what they knew to be true.
Paul,
Its very simple. Communion is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of the risen Christ.
This makes us partakers in the divine nature.
This is what Jesus means by unless, you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you have no life in you.
This was shocking to this audience, many of whom went away.
Blood can stand for both life and death.
Jewish Law forbids the mixing of the two bloods.
But in the cross, life and death, judgement and mercy was safely mixed, in Jesus Christ.
Making Jesus the saviour of humanity.
So your argument here could apply to the mixing of the two bloods also forbidden in Jewish law.
it only works if the source is the same God.
"In the same way the grace of God kept Mary free from sin."
Jesus alone committed no sins - there are no human exceptions according to Romans 3:10,23. Why then did she acknowledge her need for a savior in the Magnificat? And if she too never sinned then why do the gospels not note the fact, which would be extraordinary as it was of Jesus?
Anon at 1257,
In John 6 Jesus says that his flesh is bread. He does not say that (some) bread is his flesh. When he says that people must eat his flesh (and drink his blood), the preceding verses indicate that this is a dramatic metaphor for the bread of life.
"From the Catholic perspective, we are in union with the Orthodox. The Greeks refuse to recognize this, which is a different story."
That is being rather economical with the truth. You could have the courtesy to discuss the Filioque with them.
"Whatever the divisions, they do not amount to the ones in Protestantism."
Please explain what you mean. A division is a division.
"We make a distinction between visible church and the invisible church which consists of Protestants as well. It's not what my or your definition of church is both it's what's God's definition of church is."
I agree with that last sentence. Please tell me what you consider God's definition to be, and why. Also who is in and not in the visible church, and why.
Anon@1:00 p.m.
Jesus is Mary's saviour.
Mary’s preservation from original sin was accomplished in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive work. Therefore, Jesus is also Mary’s Savior. Because of what he would do on the cross, this grace was given to her early.
There is a reason why Jesus calls Mary "woman" a reference back to Eve.
And at the foot of the Cross which was prefigured by the tree in the Garden of Eden, Jesus says to the apostle take her as your mother, and to Mary he says take him as your son. Jesus was not simply just concerned with taking care of his mother. He also told Mary to be John's Mother. John represented all of the Christians, he was the only disciple present, and therefore he was standing in the gap for us.
Jesus could have given that discourse at any time in the days leading up to the crucifixion. He waited until his last breath to do it when every breath was agonizing and a moment before he died (and conquered sin).
Most of the early Church fathers say that he waited until that moment because the scenario at the foot of the cross completes the scenario at the foot of the tree in Eden.
Anon@1:05 a.m.
Jesus does not mean some bread, but is talking about his own flesh and blood. We agree. Communion becomes the body, and blood, of Jesus Christ.
Jesus chose bread and wine at the last supper.
"That is being rather economical with the truth. You could have the courtesy to discuss the Filioque with them."
This has been already done, one of the reasons why the Eastern churches in union with Rome recite the creed without the filioque.
"Please explain what you mean. A division is a division."
What I meant was that from our perspective we are in sacramental union with the Orthodox, because they have valid sacraments.
This cannot be said of Protestants.
"I agree with that last sentence. Please tell me what you consider God's definition to be, and why. Also who is in and not in the visible church, and why."
The invisible aspect of the Church is faith and abandonment to Christ (being "Born Again").
The visible aspects of the Church are the succession of priests and bishops and physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, which physically becomes part of Christians during communion, and which unites us with all the faithful around the world and with all Christians who came before us and with all who will follow us. That is why the Eucharist is such a big deal for us!
It is the source and summit of our faith. Since the dawn of Christianity, the Eucharist has been our unity. We believe it is clear from Scripture and the early Christians.
That is why the Catholic Church stops short of giving the name "Church" to communities of believers that don't share that.
Orthodox communities have succession to the apostles and they have the Eucharist and that's why we call them Church.
Regardless of our different cultures, languages, etc, we have one Mass, anywhere in the world. We can instantly go to to a Mass and know what it stands for.
Marian Anon,
A tradition has no truth value if it cannot be traced back unbroken to the events of which it purports to speak. All of your doctrines about Mary make their first appearance in the same era as the apocryphal gospels about Jesus, many generations after the Crucifixion. The church rejected those, but started down the road to deifying Mary by progressively granting her the same attributes as Jesus. This has gone on for 17 centuries now and the ball came significantly nearer to being carried over the line in the 19th and 20th centuries with the Immaculate Conception and the Direct Assumption into heaven. These things make me sick - and I'll bet you when we meet in heaven that they made Mary sick too.
"This has been already done, one of the reasons why the Eastern churches in union with Rome recite the creed without the filioque."
ALL Eastern Orthodox recite the Creed without the filioque; what do you mean, please? I'm confused by your statement.
"from our perspective we are in sacramental union with the Orthodox, because they have valid sacraments. This cannot be said of Protestants."
Please outline why.
"The visible aspects of the Church are the succession of priests and bishops and physical presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, which physically becomes part of Christians during communion"
Never let me deny that Jesus said "This is my body; this is my blood" when He instituted Holy Communion! We differ only over what He meant, and it is a pity that such differences cannot be acknowledged and contained in the same denomination. You are welcome at our communion rails but we are not welcome at yours; if you want to know how that feels, consider your stance re the Orthodox, whose church you recognize but not vice-versa.
As for the succession of bishops, why is that necessary, when there is a succession of faith in which every believer picked up the faith from another, from another, from another and so on back to the people who encountered Jesus? The answer appears to be because the bishops say so!
Anon@1:56 p.m.
Only God is worshipped. Nobody is deifying Mary.
You mind telling me how the early church rejected this, when their writings prove otherwise.
As for after the crucifixion. Protestantism was invented thousands of years after this.
This is kind of like a person who says, they are in love with someone, but want nothing to do with their family. I don't want to see your mother, your friends cannot come visit. Nobody else counts, but you. This is how some people are with Jesus and me, the rest be damned.
"Only God is worshipped. Nobody is deifying Mary."
Not officially, and not yet. But she is gaining more and more of the once-unique attributes of her divine Son over the centuries: perpetual virginity, sinlessness, extraordinary conception, assumption into heaven. You even address prayers in which you ask HER to do things that only God can do, and claim that you are praying THROUGH her, although those prayers do not end with the accepted formula, which would be "through Mary Our Lady". If that isn't de facto divinization I don't know what is. St Paul says that there is ONE mediator between God and man, so that we should pray through ONLY that mediator - and it is Jesus Christ. That's 1 Tim 2:5.
Jesus alone committed no sins - there are no human exceptions according to Romans 3:10,23, so Blessed Mary is not an exception. I believe that she looks down from heaven in horror at all of this.
"You mind telling me how the early church rejected this, when their writings prove otherwise."
How early? The point I made was that the first trace of these claims came generations after the events they purport to describe, as you can readily verify for yourself.
"This is kind of like a person who says, they are in love with someone, but want nothing to do with their family. I don't want to see your mother, your friends cannot come visit. Nobody else counts, but you. This is how some people are with Jesus and me, the rest be damned."
Jesus is God, right? Mary isn't. Do you want reminding of Jesus' incredibly radical statements about how believers must be prepared to set aside all else for Him?
Anon@12:11 p.m.
"ALL Eastern Orthodox recite the Creed without the filioque; what do you mean, please?
Yes, I am aware of this. It's only a heresy when added to the Greek, not the Latin.
In the original reading of the Creed (in Greek), "proceeds" referred to the Spirit's ultimate causes and source, which both Catholics and Eastern Orthodox believe is the Father alone.
Simply put: In Latin, the term used is able to be understood validly as "flows forth (from/through)" but in the greek translation, the Greek used can
ONLY be understood as "origniates from/with". The meaning of the Filioque is along the lines of "Who origniates in the Father, and flows forth from the Father and the Son."
We totally agree that:
If the Filioque was added to the Greek version, it would be a heresy.
When Catholics say that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, it means that the Son has to be there for the Spirit to proceed from the Father to someone else...because the Spirit is the Spirit of Sonship (see Romans 8:15-17), making the Son's presence intrinsically necessary. But, the Greeks assumed that Rome was saying that there are two "ultimate causes" or sources of the Spirit -- that both the Father and the Son "breath" the Spirit together and equally. But, that is not the Catholic position and never was.
"Please outline why."
I have already explained why.
"You are welcome at our communion rails but we are not welcome at yours; if you want to know how that feels, consider your stance re the Orthodox, whose church you recognize but not vice-versa."
It was Protestants who rejected these things not the other way around, going as far to even call the Mass satanic like Calvin and others did.
The attitude only changed in recent times. I am glad that you want to participate in what the reformers called an abomination.
But, you still want it on your terms, which would cancel out what the Eucharist stands for.
We respect Orthodox views, and do not receive communion at their liturgy. It would be disrespectful.
In the same way Catholics not in a state of grace and in serious sin cannot receive the Eucharist.
I do not at times, without prior confession.
The succession was necessary to carry on the Eucharist and administer the sacraments.
Anon@2:30 p.m.
Jesus alone is God. We do not prayer to Mary, but with her to Jesus. We are part of the communion of saints.
The early church did not dispute these claims about Mary, even the early reformers did not. It was the Protestants later on who threw these things out.
Lutherans still hold to Mary's perpetual Virginity.
The question I have is has getting rid of intercession to Mary and the saints, brought unity to Protestants, who claim to cling to Jesus.
It has not, because you cannot have the King without the kingdom, which includes his whole family on heaven and earth.
etyedon 11"I am glad that you want to participate in what the reformers called an abomination. But, you still want it on your terms, which would cancel out what the Eucharist stands for."
I follow Jesus Christ, not John Calvin. All I want is to share Communion with other people who love Jesus Christ and know him as God and man, crucified died and risen. I don't believe that is too much to ask. Certainly the present situation looks dreadful to the world.
"The early church did not dispute these claims about Mary, even the early reformers did not. It was the Protestants later on who threw these things out."
The 39 (founding) Articles of the Church of England reject "the idolatrous worship of Mary". But more scholarship was needed to determine that the first mention of those Marian doctrines were generations after the events they purport to describe.
Protestant disunity between denominations is God telling us that there should not be denominations - the church should revert to its scriptural structure of a congregation in each town with no hierarchy above.
Anon@2:44 p.m.
It's not your fault, but this does not change the objective nature of something. I can't call 2+2, 5 because I want it to be so.
Yes, this division looks bad to the world. And it will be until you cease from your schism.
"The 39 (founding) Articles of the Church of England reject "the idolatrous worship of Mary"."
I am in full agreement with this statement. I never claimed to worship Mary.
"Protestant disunity between denominations is God telling us that there should not be denominations - the church should revert to its scriptural structure of a congregation in each town with no hierarchy above."
This is your opinion. For us it would mean compromising the Eucharist, which cannot be done.
"But more scholarship was needed to determine that the first mention of those Marian doctrines were generations after the events they purport to describe."
This is why a church was established. Jesus did not want a do it your own Christianity.
"Yes, this division looks bad to the world. And it will be until you cease from your schism."
Come, share communion with me. It needs nothing more than two or more who gather in Jesus Christ's name.
Me: "But more scholarship was needed to determine that the first mention of those Marian doctrines were generations after the events they purport to describe."
You: "This is why a church was established. Jesus did not want a do it your own Christianity."
There is no such thing as a do-it-on-your-own Christianity. The faith is all about doing life with Jesus. but if you look at the documents of the early church, there are no Marian doctrines for many generations. Then, at the time of the gnostic gospels talking rubbish about Christ, material appears about Mary. Manke of that what you will...
Anon@2:44 p.m.
I do appreciate your need to want to be in communion with other Christians. But, there are those who have given their lives than reject the Mass.
It's because they truly believed in what it stood for.
I would recommend Scott Hahn's book the Lamb's Supper on this subject.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Lambs-Supper-Heaven-Earth/dp/0385496591
Anon@4:02 p.m.
Yes, but what this means is very different from your concept of just a fellowship meal.
Anon@4:06 p.m.
What documents are you referring too?
St. Athanasius
. . . pure and unstained Virgin . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word, 8; Gambero, 102)
St. Ephraem
Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical. Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our life (Op. syr. II, 327; Ott, 201)
The Virgin Mary is a symbol of the Church, when she receives the first announcement of the gospel . . . We call the Church by the name of Mary, for she deserves a double name. (Sermo ad noct. Resurr.; Gambero, 115)
Thou and thy mother are the only ones who are totally beautiful in every respect; for in thee, O Lord, there is no spot, and in thy Mother no stain. (Nisibene Hymns, 27, v. 8; Ott, 201)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem
Pure and spotless is this birth. For where the Holy Spirit breathes, all pollution is taken away, so that the human birth of the Only-begotten from the Virgin is undefiled.
(Catechetical Lectures, XII, 31-32; Gambero, 140)
St. Gregory Nazianzen
He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor. (Sermon 38, 13; Gambero, 162-163)
St. Gregory of Nyssa
It was, to divulge by the manner of His Incarnation this great secret; that purity is the only complete indication of the presence of God and of His coming, and that no one can in reality secure this for himself, unless he has altogether estranged himself from the passions of the flesh. What happened in the stainless Mary when the fulness of the Godhead which was in Christ shone out through her, that happens in every soul that leads by rule the virgin life. (On Virginity, 2; NPNF 2, Vol. V, 344)
[T]he power of the Most High, through the Holy Spirit, overshadowed the human nature and was formed therein; that is to say, the portion of flesh was formed in the immaculate Virgin. (Against Apollinaris, 6; Gambero, 153)
St. Ambrose
. . . Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin. (Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, 30; Jurgens, II, 166)
What is greater than the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact with another body? (Virginity, II, 6; NPNF 2, Vol. X, 374)
St. Epiphanius
Mary, the holy Virgin, is truly great before God and men. For how shall we not proclaim her great, who held within her the uncontainable One, whom neither heaven nor earth can contain? (Panarion, 30, 31; Gambero, 127)
St. Jerome
'There shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a flower shall grow out of his roots.' The rod is the mother of the Lord--simple, pure, unsullied; drawing no germ of life from without but fruitful in singleness like God Himself... Set before you the blessed Mary, whose surpassing purity made her meet to be the mother of the Lord. (Letter XXII. To Eustochium, 19, 38; NPNF 2, Vol. VI, 29, 39; cf. Gambero, p. 213: “whose purity was so great that she merited to be the Mother of the Lord”)
Indeed how inferior they are, in terms of holiness, to blessed Mary, Mother of the Lord! (Contra Pelagianos, 1, 16; Gambero, 212)
Irenaeus when responding to the Gnostics wrote:
~Ca. A.D. 180: Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, bk 5, chap. 19, no. 1, in FEF 1:101, no. 256a.
"Through a Virgin, the Word of God was introduced to set up a structure of life. Thus, what had been laid waste in ruin by this sex, was by the same sex re-established in salvation. Eve had believed the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. That which the one destroyed by believing, the other, by believing, set straight."
"I do appreciate your need to want to be in communion with other Christians. But, there are those who have given their lives than reject the Mass. It's because they truly believed in what it stood for."
Plenty of protestants and Catholics have been martyred - and I mean peaceably, not in battle - for their beliefs. Can we not honor their memory by sharing communion together if we both believe in Jesus Christ the head of the church? I'm not asking you to reject the Mass, I'm inviting you to share communion with me, and expressing the hope that I may partake of it the way you do it in your church.
While I wouldn't necessarily expect you to agree with what I'm about to say, I believe that unity is never going to come by negotiation among hierarchs, but by laymen getting to know each other and realising that the other is not antichrist.
"Yes, but what this means is very different from your concept of just a fellowship meal."
What do you think the Last Supper was?
Dear 4.19pm,
How many of those churchmen held to the PERPETUAL virginity of Mary, rather than her virginity up to the birth of Jesus that all Christians accept? How many generations did they come after Jesus, and across a major culture barrier (Jewish to Greek)? How many of them speak UNAMBIGUOUSLY of perpetual virginity, sinlessness, immaculate conception and Assumption of Mary? Most of the quotes you provide simply speak highly of her. I am happy to do that myself, as God no doubt chose a woman of exceptional motherly qualities and faith. I just don't believe she was sinless, virgin long after Christ was born, conceived in a spiritually different way from you or me, or directly assumed into heaven.
Anon@4:46 p.m.
I do agree, but unity must come through the truth.
Anon@4:48 p.m.
Here is what Jesus says in Matthew 5:23-24:
"So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
That is, Jesus depicts the Christians as making offerings at an altar, and it would be quite a stretch to suggest that He’s not referring to a literal altar (since we’re told to leave our gifts there to go make peace with our brothers). But what is an altar, other than a place to offer sacrifice? And what is this Sacrifice, if not the Sacrifice of the Mass?
1 Corinthians 10:16-21
Perhaps the clearest instance in the New Testament in which the Eucharist is treated as a sacrifice is in 1 Corinthians 10:16-21,
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.
Consider the people of Israel; are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?
What do I imply then? That food offered to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, I imply that what pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons.
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.
To prove that the Eucharist is a participation in the Body and Blood of Christ, St. Paul equates it to the Jews eating the animals sacrificed at the altar, and the pagans eating the food sacrificed to idols. He then says that we have to choose whether we want to drink the cup of the Lord or of demons, and whether we want to “partake of the table of” the Lord or of demons.
We already know that partaking of the table of demons means eating the food sacrificed to them, and Paul is clearly treating the Eucharist as the Christian equivalent: a sacrificial meal.
Contd...
Hebrews 9:15-24
The Book of Hebrews likewise supports a Sacrificial view of the Eucharist. In Hebrews 9:15-24, right before discussing the once-for-all nature of Christ‘s death, there’s a discussion on the application of the atoning blood, and an important parallel drawn:
Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred which redeems them from the transgressions under the first covenant. For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.
Hence even the first covenant was not ratified without blood.
For when every commandment of the law had been declared by Moses to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” And in the same way he sprinkled with the blood both the tent and all the vessels used in worship.
Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
Like Exodus 12, this passage distinguishes between two distinct sacrificial aspects: the shedding of blood, and the application of (and purification with) blood. The first paragraph (Heb. 9:15-17) deals with the atoning death of animals under the Old Covenant.
A parallel is drawn to Christ’s Death on the Cross on Calvary (Heb. 9:15), in which “a death has occurred which redeems” believers.
But the second paragraph transitions to discussing the application of the sacrificial blood. Here, the Old Testament example isn’t about animals being killed, but about Moses taking the blood of the sacrifices, and applying it repeatedly: first to the altar (Ex. 24:6), then to the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7), then to the people themselves (Ex. 24:8), then to the tent, and finally, to the vessels used in worship (Heb. 9:21).
The New Testament parallel here isn’t to Calvary, but to the Last Supper. We see this from Hebrews 9:20, in which Moses is depicted as saying “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” This passage is vital, because instead of quoting Moses directly, the author of Hebrews blends the words of Moses in Exodus 24:8, with the words of institution at the Last Supper (Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).
Calvary is a once-for-all action, just as the slaying of the animals was. But just as Moses is able to apply the blood first to the altar, and then to the Book, and then to the people, without re-sacrificing the animals, the Eucharist can be offered repeatedly without re-crucifying Christ.
One final point about this passage, while we’re on the subject: we are promised that the New Covenant consists of “better sacrifices,” plural, than the Old (Heb. 9:23), yet the Protestant view turns this upside down. That is, Protestants would have to say that Jesus Christ’s words of institution at the Last Supper were merely symbolic, while Moses’ words of institution (Heb. 9:20; Ex. 24:8) were efficacious, since they actually sealed the Covenant, and Moses and the elders proceeded to behold God and eat and drink in His Presence (Ex. 24:11).
This is contrary to solid exegesis and typology, and runs counter to Heb. 9:23.
Anon@4:58 p.m.
Church Fathers on Mary's Perpetual virginity.
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_mary_ever-virgin.htm
The Immaculate Conception
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_immaculate_conception.htm
The Assumption
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_assumption.htm
"I do agree, but unity must come through the truth."
I agree with that too; let's remember Who said that "I am the way, the truth and the life". If I am in Him then I am part of His church, and if you too are in Him then are we not capable of sharing Communion?
Dear Anon of 5.17pm,
My reading of Hebrews is that Christ's sacrifice was once for all, but the theology of time itself is implicit in this difference between protestants and Catholics. Maybe we could be reconciled by understanding that protestants have been talking about chronos-time and Catholics about kairos-time. Or maybe not. But all who are in Christ should be able to share Communion together without dividing over our differing understandings. One day He will come back. Do you think He will talk theology and philosophy on that day to Catholic and protestant about the Eucharist, or tell them that the unity in Him and the relationship with and through and in Him transcends the differences about its meaning?
Anon@5:27 p.m.
This is exactly why, what Jesus said about communion really matters.
If I knew you personally, I would invite you to go to Eucharistic adoration with me. Something Protestants can do, even if they cannot receive the Eucharist.
I was away from the church for a while, It was HIS Eucharistic presence that brought me back.
"One day He will come back. Do you think He will talk theology and philosophy on that day to Catholic and protestant about the Eucharist, or tell them that the unity in Him and the relationship with and through and in Him transcends the differences about its meaning?"
Or he'll simply say my real presence already exists in tabernacles in churches across the world and is made manifest at every Mass.
"If I knew you personally, I would invite you to go to Eucharistic adoration with me. Something Protestants can do, even if they cannot receive the Eucharist."
I've done that and got nothing out of it. I've taken communion too - on one occasion when a Catholic priest was in a situation in which somebody's life was at stake and declared that the non-Catholic Christians present could partake under some Catholic rule. I was glad to partake but that did neither more nor less for me than any other Communion. Nevertheless I believe that all who are in Christ should be free to share Communion, and wish it were so. I see no good reason why denominational differences cannot be left at the door when this sacrament is administered.
Anon@3:48 p.m.
It's sad that nothing good has come out of adoration or communion for you. It has changed my life.
Unconfessed sin is a big factor, one of the reasons why Catholics first have the sacrament of reconciliation before the sacrament of communion.
Differences cannot be left at the door, simply because it's way too important if it truly is the real presence of Christ.
It's useless to me, if it's just a symbol.
"It's sad that nothing good has come out of adoration or communion for you."
That's not true - I didn't say that. I got nothing out of adoration. Communion is different, but I got no more or less out of it on the occasion when I was permitted Catholic communion than at other times.
Anon@4:12 a.m.
Jesus is present in the host being adored the same way he is present in communion.
I am sure you feel Jesus close to you and by your actions make Jesus close to you but it is not eating Jesus (John 6 again). So receiving communion in any other non-Catholic tradition is just a symbol and not really eating Jesus.
"Jesus is present in the host being adored the same way he is present in communion."
I don't agree with that. But as my aim is to discuss whether believers in Christ across the Reformation divide can and should share Communion, I don't particularly wish to discuss the issue of transubstantiation. I'm glad to partake of Catholic communion on the few occasions it has been offered to me even though I disagree with Rome's explanation of what is going on. I'd be interested in how many lay Catholics would gladly share in protestant communions if Rome lifted its ban on them doing so.
Anon@4:44 a.m.
You simply cannot avoid the most important issue.
As I said, if it's only a symbol, I really do not care. It means nothing, It's an empty ritual.
I think the approach to worship, is also one of the biggest issues that divides Catholics/Orthodox and Protestants.
Protestants want worship to suit them. The other two hold that it's organic and has been handed down.
Everybody cannot do their own thing. This is what leads to division.
You can worship God, your way. We will worship him HIS way.
I am not seeking a false unity, but if you regard transubstantiation as the most important issue then we differ on what is the most important issue. And I wholly agree that proper worship should be designed make God feel good about us, rather than vice-versa (which happens spontaneously when we get it right). I am mystified that you think I would take another view. The fact is that we are both committed to Jesus Christ, man and God, crucified died and risen, and I ardently believe that that is enough for fellowship of such depth as to include Communion. It seems you don't. That doesn't make me want to get polemical, it just makes me sad. We shall have fellowship in heaven, why not start here on earth?
Anon@1:49 a.m.
Communion in a Catholic church is a sign of entering into full unity with it.
For those who are out of full communion with the Catholic Church, the spiritual unity must happen first (by entering into full unity with the Church through the rites of initiation), just as those who are not married must be married before they can enter into bodily unity.
In both cases, the physical unity naturally flows from the spiritual unity. Eucharist strengthens the unity of the Body of Christ, just as the marriage act strengthens the sacrament of matrimony. But we must do first things first.
To do otherwise would be false.
We can seek fellowship in other ways, such praying together, and working together on issues as as abortion, gay marriage, the ongoing war on the family, religious liberty and other issues that affect Christians.
"Eucharist strengthens the unity of the Body of Christ."
And we are both part of the body of Christ, so let us strengthen our unity in this way. I have as little desire to become a Catholic as you presumably do a protestant, but that is not the point.
"But we must do first things first. To do otherwise would be false."
Yes, He is Christ.
Anon@6:39 p.m.
The sacrament of Holy Orders is important for the Eucharist. Intercommunion is not possible when Protestants have not preserved this.
The church is not just invisible. It's bound to preserve the faith, once delivered to the saints.
That being said, I have been fighting off attacks from all sides, wanna-be women priests, Protestants, and other non-Catholics when it comes to this issue. It's funny how so many are circling around a piece of bread, to make it something it's not.
Anon@10.56pm,
You come across as intensely suspicious of your own brother in Christ who simply wants to share Communion with you. I've said enough here as I don't want this to turn into point scoring.
Anon@3:45 a.m.
I am sorry if I misunderstood you, but I have given you the reasons why intercommunion is just not possible.
You can disagree, but trying to push it over and over again is just disrespectful.
I have no idea how many Catholics I was talking to! I don't think I was disrespectful; certainly I did not mean to be. Let's leave it at that.
As a Christian, I believe homosexuals are born, not made. If any of you've experienced or witnessed homosexuals grow up, you would know this. No one in their right mind would ask for that kind of abuse as a child growing up, or even as an adult.
I also believe that it's the Christians who are responsible for any type of gay anti-Christian agenda, if one exists at all.
Let's just say homosexuality is 100% a sin (not my belief, but...). It obviously does not rank up there as all that important as Jesus rarely if ever mentions it. Remember, Jesus also said in Luke 14:26 "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and ..." yet, most Christians rank family as sacred.
So the strong focus on this issue, even if it is a sin, is sinful in itself, because it not only drives loving people away from Christianity, it distracts from issues Jesus stressed as all important: poverty, faith, idolatry, false teachers, suffering, forgiveness, etc. This is especially true when Christians target loving relationships instead of promiscuous sex.
And if you read scripture that addresses sexuality closely, it's not all that clear it's referring to a loving relationship between two people of the same gender, only promiscuous sex or violent sex as in the case of Lot, where the term sodomy is introduced. It was a very violent situation involving homosexual rape, and nothing at all to do with two people in a loving relationship.
The only place it is addressed plainly is in Leviticus, however, applying Levitical law to ethical standards for people today is questionable because much of Levitical law is obsolete, for instance, clean and unclean animals.
"In the New Testament, there are two passages in Paul’s epistles with sin lists that some translations and interpreters link to homosexuality.
The first is 1Corinthians 6:9-10 — “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.”
The second is 1Timothy 1:9-10 – “the law is laid down not for the innocent but for the lawless and disobedient, for the godless and sinful, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their father or mother, for murderers, fornicators, sodomites, slave-traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching…”
The word Paul uses in both texts, rendered “sodomites” by the NRSV, is a rare one and therefore difficult to pin down as to its exact meaning in Paul’s cultural context. Luther translated it “defilers of boys,” seeing in it an abusive and exploitative kind of pederasty. A second word in the Corinthians text, translated as “male prostitutes” by the NRSV, and “effeminate” in some other translations, literally means “soft.” Luther rendered this obscure word, “weaklings,” and the New Jerusalem Bible brings out its general ethical significance by using “self-indulgent.” Dr. Brian Peterson comments: “Basically, one was considered ‘soft’ if one allowed desires to gain control. This language of ‘soft’ was used to describe men who ate too much, slept too much, and those who engaged in too much sex, whether with boys, or men, or multiple women, or even with one’s own wife.” Some translations have taken one use of this in ancient culture — those who submit as passive partners to pederasts — but the word is broader than that."
http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/what-does-the-bible-actually-say-about-homosexuality#more-32033
The bottom line is that since Jesus did not really, if at all, address the issue of two people of the same gender in a loving relationship, there is no justification for making this such a large issue to the point that it alienates a lot of good people, while fostering a climate of hate.
Anon@6.50pm,
If I am writing a Christian essay then I quote form the scriptures and also quote from various non-scriptural sources. That is what the Holy Spirit is doing, through those NT writers, in the days when 'scripture' meant the OT. But because it is the Holy Spirit writing, those extra sayings that are quoted (and not the rest of the documents they come from) are elevated to the status of scripture.
If the comment of Jesus at Matt 23:2-3 meant what you say then the NT would be contradicting itself, since Jesus often castigates the Pharisees for making traditions binding. Whatever it means - and there is legitimate discussion about that (sitting in Moses seat = administering Mosaic Law?), it cannot be taken in the way you propose.
Wow! Anon@6.50pm, to which I just replied (6.28am), has disappeared!
Anon@8.25pm,
I don't understand your first comment - no child asks to be abused, rather it happens to some and is a tragedy. When homosexuals say that they were homosexual from birth, they can't actually know - they mean "from earliest memory" and abuse could have taken place before then. To me that is the most likely cause of homosexual nature. I do not rule out that some people are born homosexual (cf Matt 19:12).
"I also believe that it's the Christians who are responsible for any type of gay anti-Christian agenda"
It depends what you mean by responsible. In individual meetings, Christians have a duty to make the gospel clear and that includes repentance, which means making clear what is sin. This must be done non-coercively and with sensitivity, and I agree that this has not always been the case. There is also the fact that we live in a democracy, and gays and Christians have very differing ideas over what the law of the land should be. That is the main clash today.
I wrote early in this thread that heterosexual promiscuity is what is wrecking the family today, not homosexual. Homosexualism is in the vanguard against individual liberty, and that is the ground it should be fought on.
What is immoral did not change at the crucifixion. The moral components of Mosaic Law, ie those governing interpersonal relations, remain a divinely given guide to sin. Homosexual acts are a different category than eating pork. Have you noticed that it is ACTS which God prohibits, not 'orientation,' which can change?
Anon@7:04 a.m.
I'm sorry I wasn't clear. A good majority of gay men - those who can't hide their mannerisms - have suffered tremendous abuse growing up (often times by Christians), only to face rejection from society as adults if they choose not to hide who they are, therefore, the argument that men choose their sexuality is insane. The only choice they make is whether to hide or not.
If heterosexuals imagine themselves forced to marry someone of the same sex, they might understand that who we are attracted to, and who we fall in love with is intrinsic to who we are.
Regarding the law, under the New Covenant, Jesus changed many aspects of Mosaic law. For instance, divorce and remarriage — under Mosaic law you could "put away" your wife if you “found some uncleanness in her” (Deut 24:1) and both could remarry. In the New Covenant if some one remarries they commit adultery.
“It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.” Mat 5:31-32
And under the Old Covenant you were to make oaths by God’s name (Deut 6:13). Under the New Covenant you are not to make any oaths.
5:33-34 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne"
So I'm not convinced the New Covenant condemns loving homosexual relationships anymore than heterosexual relationships, but even if they are sinful, to make this such a large issue is, as I've said before, sinful because it fosters hate and turns good people away from God. The irony is that the same Christians who condemn homosexuality, support many of the things that Jesus condemned, and condemn the things that Jesus stood for.
Dear Roth's,
This is Anon@7.04am. I agree with all you say at 11.22pm except the last paragraph, ie regarding whether homosexual acts are sinful; and how big an issue should it be today? The New Testament uses umbrella words for sexual sin. Although the case for homosexuality being included in them is strong, based simply on their meaning in the ancient Greek world, I accept that it is not totally conclusive. The way to resolve the issue is look at what are sexual sins according to the OT. Homosexual acts are included, and even require capital punishment (Lev 20:13).
Christians are not under Mosaic Law, of course, but the definition of sin did not change at the Crucifixion. You rightly point out that eating pork is prohibited under Moses and OK for Christians (and point out some other differences) - in effect asking: Why should homosexual acts not be like that? The answer is that homosexual acts are laws of interpersonal relationship ('morality'), and human moral nature remains the same now as then.
It is ironic that the secular gay movement in its anti-Christianity understands these scriptures better than the gay Christian movement. The problem with the latter is not homosexuality, but unrepentance. In fact some Christians who are attracted to the same sex believe that they must be celibate; see
http://www.gaychristian.net/rons_view.php
This has become a large issue because homosexuals are demanding, in the political arena, not to be discriminated against. But discrimination is only relevant when two things that are the same are treated differently, and homosexuality and heterosexuality are simply not the same.
air jordan 13
chrome hearts
golden goose
longchamp bags
gucci belt
caterpillar boots
Kanye West shoes
lebron james shoes
chrome hearts
russell westbrook shoes
Post a Comment