Monday, March 16, 2015
what björn (farmer) thinks...: Javier Solana now calls for a negotiated settlemen...
what björn (farmer) thinks...: Javier Solana now calls for a negotiated settlemen...: ...the situation in Europe must be bad enough as we see Mr.Solana now popping up suddenly again from behind his veil back to every podium...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
507 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 507 Newer› Newest»"People who stand upon what the Lord says are being shoved out, and affecting every facet of life now"
Yes, and this is what should unify us, ALL Christians, who belong the Church universal (which is the meaning of catholic), who are the Bride of Christ - whether Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, even Baptist. :^)
--+-------
An interesting observation, that may or may not mean much:
Christians down through the ages have recorded various dreams and visions. Some seem to be from God, some not. Some are renowned, some more obscure. Certainly one shouldn't focus an unhealthy attention on them. But I do tend to find them interesting, especially as they display in a unique way a method of predicting the future.
Back to the theme of European wars, Mr. Nyquist did some research back in the late 90s and brought together on one page bits and pieces of dreams and visions that were noteworthy because they spoke of various wars to come on the European continent. I find them interesting, and wonder if anyone else here might too. Make of them what you will.
This is from an "old" version of his website:
http://www.jrnyquist.com/may14/new_page_2.htm
TREE INTEGRITY and CODOMINATING STEMS
Any species of tree normally has a single
central stem, called a leader. All the other
parts are called branches.
Often it happens that a normal young tree
grows for years and years, the normal way,
with a central single stem, but one day a terrible storm breaks the stem off, usually up high
where it was thin enough to break from the
strong wind.
At that point it immediately, though very slowly
begins to grow a different way.
The topmost branches that are left behind after
the break begin to receive sunlight from all sides
where before the break they only received sun
on one side and were shaded everywhere else.
The sunlight is the thing that makes the topmost
branches begin to grow straight up and assume
the position of leader. But the new situation
means that there are now three or more leaders
all competing for topmost status.
This all goes along for many more years and the tree is now twice as big and it has a candelabra
kind of top. Unfortunately this arrangement
isn't as stable as the original framework of the
tree. Eventually one or more of the new top
sections easily breaks of in another storm. The
architecture of the tree is now compromised as far
as structural integrity and it will never be as
strong. It will continue to grow though, because that's what trees do. In fact the bigger that the new tops get, the more they weigh and the more likely
they are to come crashing down.
Some trees can live to be two thousand years old.
Anonymous 6:04 A.M.
Re:John W. O’Malley, S.J. says, in A History of the Popes, page 8, that no one piece of evidence states in straightforward and unambiguous language either that Peter either went to Rome or that he died there, although O’Malley finds the circumstantial evidence is persuasive.
But John W. O'Malley goes on to say that taken all together the several pieces of evidence prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peter went to Rome and died there.
Have you actually read John W. O'Malley's book A HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM PETER TO THE PRESENT?
The whole first chapter,entitled Peter: BISHOP OF ROME? (pages 3-13) is available to be read for free online.
In this chapter, Father O'Malley convincingly defends the traditional Catholic belief that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there.
Here is the link.
A HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM PETER TO THE PRESENT
www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5249E.pdf
Mark,
Blessed Elena Aiello (1895-1961) -was a Mystic, Stigmatic, Victim Soul, Prophet & Foundress of the Minim Tertiaries of the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
In 1940, Sister Elena was directed by Our Lord to take a more public role and to deliver a
message to Premier Benito Mussolini, telling him not to join with Hitler in World War II.
Otherwise, Italy would suffer a terrible defeat and Mussolini would be punished by Divine Justice and have a speedy downfall. But he ignored the warning, and all that was foretold came to pass.
On Good Friday in 1961, in a prophecy that resembled the prophecies of Lucia dos Santos at Fatima, Elena fortold that
“Russia, spurred on by Satan, will seek to dominate the whole world and, by bloody revolutions, will propagate her false teachings throughout all the nations, especially in Italy. The Church will be persecuted and the Pope and the priests shall suffer much.”
In April 2011, Pope Benedict XVI approved the petition allowing for the Beatification of Venerable Elena Aiello. She was declared Blessed on September 14, 2011 (Feast of the Exaultation of the Holy Cross) at 17.30 in Piazza dei Bruzi in Cosenza, Italy. The proclamation of the Blessed was made by Cardinal Angelo Amato, prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, along with Archbishop of Cosenza/Bisignano, His Excellency Salvatore Nunnari.
By the way, it should be noted that when the Catholic church Beatifies or Canonizes a person, it does so strictly on the basis of the sanctity and heroic virtue of the person, and not for any mystical graces, revelations or prophesies that they may have allegedly received. In other words, by Beatifying Mother Elena Aiello, the Church is recognizing her extraordinary virtue alone, and not any of the heavenly graces, revelations or prophecies that she may have been given even if they have been deemed to be worthy of belief.
Mark,
Lucia dos Santos who died on February 13, 2005 - just weeks before the death of Pope St. John Paul II - was only ten years old when the Blessed Virgin reportedly appeared to her at Fatima.
Lucia was 10 years old when on May 13, 1917, while tending the sheep in the Cova de Iria, a woman, who later identified herself as the Blessed Virgin Mary, appeared to the children. The apparition would continue monthly on the 13th of the month until October 1917 (save August, when imprisonment by the anti-clerical authorities prevented it). During each month's apparition, the Virgin encouraged prayer, especially the rosary, and sacrifice. She also communicated certain prophecies of the future (the end of World War I, the rise of error in Russia (communism) and its propagation throughout the world, the annihilation of nations, another war preceded by a heavenly sign if men did not convert, and the suffering and persecution of the good, especially the Holy Father). On Oct. 13, 1930, the bishop of Leiria-Fátima, José Alves Correia da Silva, declared the apparitions of Fátima worthy of credibility and allowed public devotion to the Virgin under the title of Our Lady of the Rosary of Fátima.
After the prophesied death of Jacinta and Francisco, during the flu pandemic of 1919, Lucia alone remained to carry on the mission assigned by the "woman from heaven." At 14 she was admitted as a boarder to the school of the Sisters of St. Dorothy in Vilar, near Oporto in the north of Portugal. On Oct. 24, 1925, she entered the Institute of the Sisters of St. Dorothy as a postulant in the convent in Tuy, Spain, not far from the Portuguese border. During these years she would continue to receive private revelations explanatory of the message of Fátima. She made her first vows on Oct. 3, 1928, and her perpetual vows on Oct. 3, 1934, receiving the name Sister Mary of the Sorrowful Mother.
In 1946, seeking a more contemplative life, Lucia entered the Carmelite convent of St. Teresa in Coimbra, where she made her profession as a Discalced Carmelite on May 31, 1949. She took the name Sister Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart.
In 1967, Sister Lucia traveled to Fatima to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the apparitions, presided over by Pope Paul VI. She went again in 1982, when Paul John Paul II came to the Shrine on 13 May to give thanks for the saving of his life during the assassination attempt of 13 May 1981, and again when the Pope came there in 1991, and finally in 2000, to beatify Jacinta and Francisco.
cont...
cont...
Over the years Sr. Lucia would write two books, Memoirs, recounting the events of Fatima in her own words, and Calls from the Message of Fatima, giving answers to the many questions about living the message of Fátima, which she has been asked over the years.
https://www.ewtn.com/fatima/children/lucia.htm
THE MIRACLE OF THE SUN AT FATIMA
...On October 13th (1917) a crowd of 70,000 gathered at the Cova da Iria in response to the children’s claim that a miracle would occur on that day “so that all may believe.” At the appointed time, in the middle of a rainstorm the clouds broke up and the sun was seen as a disk spinning in the sky, throwing off great rays of fantastic colours. As one columnist reported, “Before the astonished eyes of the crowd the sun trembled and danced.” Suddenly it seemed to fall until it almost reached the earth, but then it stopped, slowly making its way back into the sky. Many of those present “wept and prayed” in recognition of the miracle they had awaited. The phenomenon was witnessed by people 40 kilometres away, proving that mass hysteria could not be held responsible.
http://www.mysticsofthechurch.com/2010/03/fatima-miracle-of-sun.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIs8cuIwTo
_________________________
It is to be noted that the assassination attempt on Pope St. John Paul II occurred on the very day and the very hour of the anniversary of the first of the Fatima apparitions. May 13, 1981.
It was believed (and alleged by the Mitrokhin Archive) that the Soviet Union was behind the assassination attempt on account of Pope John Paul's II's backing of Solidarity in Poland.
Sr. Lucia of Fatima: "Russia is going to punish the world."
According to Sister Lucia, in an interview with Father Augustin Fuentes in Coimbra Portugal on December 26, 1957,"Russia is going to punish the world."
In other words, Russia will be God's instrument....."his hammer"....by which He will chastise the world which is becoming a cesspool of corruption and iniquity.
With what is currently going on in Russia and Ukraine, it might be wise for the world to look back at Sr. Lucia's warnings and get right with the Lord!
Paul @ 12:49
What the heck was that thing about the tree?
Was that a comparison to the RCC?
There was no Fatima miracles.
It was Satan.
Or, maybe Satan was just posting at 5:12 PM.
If Paul chooses to compare the Catholic Church to a tree, let him.
We have the promise of Jesus (from 33 AD) that 'the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it' (Matthew 16:18).
If Paul chooses to compare the Catholic Church to a tree, let him.
We have the promise of Jesus (from 33 AD) that 'the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it' (Matthew 16:18).
IRON GRIP OF PRIVATE COMPANIES ON SEEDS RAISES SPECTER: WILL MANY GOD-MADE FRUITS AND VEGETABLES VANISH?
http://tinyurl.com/qxnt9p6
Meanwhile At The Trailer Park Said:
In reading over the back and forth between Christine, and the RCC wolves here, Christine has done a better job of making her point!!!! Her valid question from 1:02 A.M. was not answered, and at that point the RCC wolves stepped up the name calling and accusations toward Christine.
I'm NOT Christine's fan! She is a PITB. She needs a life! But, that said, her posts on the subject of RCC are much more persuasive than even 'Brilliant Hero' Susanna's. Certainly better than the person at 1:02 A.M. who called her a TWIT!!!
I have been reading posts at this blog since it began. I can not ever remember any of the Catholics here ever truly glorifying the Lord. I have heard protestants doing so. The Catholics do certainly glorify important figures within catholism though. Is your vain religion more important than The Rock who is higher than everything else!
It will be requisite to "come out of Babylon" in the very near future. Do you Catholics trust in Christ alone for your salvation? Why do you need all the vain religious show? Let me tell you, Christ alone is ALL you need! The vain tradition, idols, worship of Mary, prayers to Mary,as well as prayers to numerous 'saints', will NOT get you to heaven! No one will pray you out of purgatory! Fact is, your entangled in a cult, and you cling stubbornly to your man made religion. Sadly so. Just put down the rosary beads and walk away. Jesus is immeasurably better than anything else this world can entice you with!
Dear Oz,
My prayers are with Patricia Jannuzzi as well.
Here are some other related articles on the Patricia Jannuzzi story.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/2015/time-war
______________________________
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/14/catholic-teacher-suspended-over-comments-on-homosexuality/
______________________________
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2015/03/threatened-for-her-zeal-for-the-faith
Paul 12:49
I like your analogy, it sounds exactly like the situation with the Orthodox, RCC and Protestants.
But let's figure a species for the tree that doesn't completely die if it crashes just starts regrowing.
I think some trees can keep living with a partial breakdown if some connection to the main trunk remains.
whoever who preferred RC to "you people," no offense intended just easier to type that than "Roman
Catholic" and I sometimes say EO instead of Eastern Orthodox.
As for gates of hell not prevailing, define "prevail." short term success in stamping out Christianity or organized forms of it might not qualify as "prevail," which might require a more permanent destruction to be called "prevailing." or it might be an issue of locality, Daniel says the antichrist made war against the saints and prevailed until the Second Coming.
Jesus also asked in Luke if He would find faith on the earth when He comes back, and left it an open question.
Gates are a puzzling thing. I suppose the attacking forces that come from gates could be identified with them, but gates are a defensive thing not an offensive thing.
Some protestant pointed out that on the basis of this, the church (meaning believers) should be on the offensive against evil. The suppression of paganism, infiltration of the world with our values and the driving out of demons are examples of this.
anton johanssen's prophecies are interesting, says five great wars will come here, two being civil wars and USA
breaks into four or five conferederations.
To 'Trailer Park' @ 7:40 PM
And I suppose you call your long RANT to me 'glorifying the Lord'???
If some of you so-called 'Christians' spent more time on your KNEES in prayer....and less time attacking the Catholic Church, we Catholics wouldn't HAVE to defend ourselves.
As a matter of fact, we shouldn't be put in this position in the first place. After all, both groups are Christians, united in one basic core belief....that we believe that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ died for our sins so that we can spend eternity in Heaven.
Just a reminder - you are NOT our judge and jury. Only GOD can do that.
Using words of slander like 'cult' and 'wolves' only succeeds in speaking VOLUMES about YOU....and not in a good way.
What you don't realize is that over the past 8 years, I have personally debated the same old arguments on this blog....ad nauseam!!! So, if you think that I am going to fall for Christine's continual 'baiting'....you are mistaken.
The truth is that none of you really want to hear what we Catholics have to say....you just want to go on the attack. Some of you seem to view it as 'entertainment' (like a kind of blood sport).
What a few of you fail to realize (and what Constance has reminded ALL of us over the years)....is that the New World Order Global Elite is 'playing' the main religious groups (traditional Protestants, Catholics, Jews) against each other....with their game of 'divide and conquer'....toward their ultimate goal and agenda of replacing those religions with a new ONE WORLD RELIGION. Now, MOST Protestants are too smart to allow themselves to become 'useful tools'....they see the transparency of what is happening and refuse to go along with it. When are the rest of you going to smarten up???
This latest round started, if I am correct in a quick search, when Paul dragged up the old saw about
the papacy as the antichrist. I answered with proof against this, and started taking fire from those who
prefer the magisterium of protestant writers of fame to the Bible
speaking for itself,
then probably because of the issue of Peter morphed into the issue of whether Rome or EO is the original
core church.
All the patriarchates are Aposolic sees, Rome and Antioch for obvious reasons, Constantinople because of Andrew brother of Peter who was probably sent on his missionary journey by Peter unless he got a direct vision, in the former case any bishops he appointed would be done at the behest of Peter in effect, Alexandria Mark Peter's son and appointed by him, Jerusalem likely James was appointed by Peter after starting the church at Pentecost.
So you don't have a petrine lack if you don't hold to Rome. But Roman preeminence is a product of politics as much as anything else.
Christine, you are the only one going 'round' and around. Don't you ever get tired of chasing your tail???
Here's some history about the word "church". It might shed some light on the discussion.
http://jewishstudies.eteacherbiblical.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Saving-Lost-Sheep.pdf
Okay, now I am going to give glory to God. While the specific details in that pdf file are not typical, I was
led by God into getting information in books about the Jewish context and foundation of Christianity. I thought
this was common information, more than just the obvious that the New Covenant is promised in the Old
Covenant, which is common knowledge or used to be, I don't know about a lot of modern Christians who think the OT is totally irrelevant. Don't
even read it.
But I realize that God saw to it I had information a lot of people weren't getting. This file has info I
didn't have, but it is nothing surprising or alien as a category. that essentially Christianity is a
Jewish sect is something I already figured out, the file makes this a bit clearer than most who write about
the Jewish context of early Christianity.
But Glory to God what I thought was pretty standard information apparently isn't, yet I got that
decades ago.
Of course the Hebrew Roots crew is twisting this to make a judaizing cult.
Wow, first the Catholics are 'twisting' things; then, the Hebrews are 'twisting' things. Of course, Christine never 'twists' anything, does she? LOL
(Please pass the popcorn.)
I did not say the Hebrews were twisting things, I said THE HEBREW ROOTS MOVEMENT is twisting the Jewish basis of Christianity.
get it right.
"Christine has no life but to strain at the gnats and swallow camels.
Jesus himself will one day straighten out what every church era has gotten confused."
But there is no straightening out the mess Christine continues to make of this blog at the moment which is really too bad. Even if I happen to agree with her (that rare occasion) she can add more confusion quicker than any one else by simply keeping arguments going in adding more sludge to a topic as she goes. Her statements and insinuations at what she thinks she knows about what all the rest of us believe and say are so self-righteous, her accusations are self-deceived. She excels in confusion. She works for the devil.
AMEN, Anonymous @ 11:37 AM.
Yes, Susanna is definitely a "brilliant hero" lol.
There are only a few people here that are non catholic that are smart enough to take her to task on her catholic zombie crap. But, they won't as it would seem they are more interested in not offending her that speaking the TRUTH.
And most of the Catholics here piggyback off her long winded, church father infested trash with comments like they come from a junior high pep rally.
For those of you who are not catholic and still look in on this blog- just watch Susanna flip flop.
Take a look at all the anti- climate agenda comments she has made over SEVERAL years. But, the pope starts talking this trash and all of a sudden "he is teaching us to be good stewards". LOL.
Take a look at all the ant-gay lifestyle comments she has made over SEVERAL years. But, the pope starts talking about more toleration, and all of a sudden- NOT A PEEP. LOL.
Take a look at how often she is asked to weigh in on catholic issues. THAT IS HILARIOUS!! Same thing as asking a car salesman about his own cars!
She even had the LAMEST, most BS comeback to Craig's post earlier. And no one said a word. I wish Craig would have let her have it as his post was based on research and not church father hogwash.
So, let's wait for all those intelligent responses from the peanut gallery.
I forgot to add, how Susanna has supported more than a few popes for accepting or kissing the Quran. Just look it up.
Well the Quran teaches some mighty fine things that a Christian should be accepting of.
A few examples:
Jesus never died on the cross and rose on the third day. It was actually Simon of Cyrene as Allah basically played a trick on mankind.
When Jesus returns He will actually SERVE the Mahdi.
When Jesus returns He will help the Mahdi wipe out all religions that are NOT of Islam.
Sounds like a book I'd want to support.
Nahhhhhh!
My support or lips would never go near such a thing.
anon 2:10
"Take a look at all the anti- climate agenda comments she has made over SEVERAL years. But, the pope starts
talking this trash and all of a sudden "he is teaching us to be good stewards". LOL. "
this is exactly the problem with the papal focus thing. EVEN THOUGH INFALLIBILITY IS TECHNICALLY LIMITED
TO FAITH AND MORALS AND GIVEN AS AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF A SPECIAL SORT, the instinct regarding such a person
is to listen to everything he says.
Granted, the good stewardship is a legitimate issue, whether there is any global warming going on or
whether we are headed into an ice age. but he has bought the global warming idea.
"Take a look at all the ant-gay lifestyle comments she has made over SEVERAL years. But, the pope starts talking about more toleration, and all of a sudden- NOT A PEEP. LOL. "
WRONG. she was supporting the teacher in trouble for making an anti gay statement.
"She even had the LAMEST, most BS comeback to Craig's post earlier. And no one said a word. I wish Craig would have let her have it as his post was based on research and not church father hogwash."
susanna pointed out that the sole issue to the question was was Peter in Rome or not?
There is a biblical hint he was,
since apparently "Babylon" was used to refer to Rome by Jewish pop culture, which was the same as Christian culture then.
People St. Irenaeus being a student of one of St. John the Apostle's students should be listened to as a viable historical source.
My point is all the papal lineages mean nothing, because there are other direct and indirect petrine lineages
out there in the East, and the whole thing got rolling from Peter's preaching at Pentecost. Peter's presence in Rome doesn't make it the
top dog, and Antioch having the same pedigree is on the basis of petrinism so to speak EQUAL to Rome. or even
SUPERIOR being bishoped by Peter before Rome ever was. BUT PETRINISM WAS NOT THE BASIS FOR ROME'S STATUS OR ANY OTHER PATRIARCHATE'S STATUS.
it was all politics.
I don't think a heretic pope breaks the chain, because whoever holds it does so from predecessors who got it
from whoever back to Peter, proving the antiquity. A title search on a property for instance is not about
the morals of the previous owners, just establishes a chain of ownership back to whenever.
anon 2:20
having finished my post and posted it, I see yours which I hadn't read yet.
THIS IS A LEGITIMATE ISSUE, and kissing the koran is akin to apostasy, at least if you know what
is in it.
Pope Benedict XVI when he went into a mosque, there is a video, held his hand down by his side in the three
fingers out two in symbol of The Holy Trinity and the Two Natures of Christ. Sort of a sneak spiritual
warfare move. Good for him. I don't recall if he did the kissing the koran thing or not.
Susanna is too loyal a daughter of the (Roman) church. and LOYALTY IS A VASTLY OVERRATED VIRTUE. Another word
for it is a being "a respecter of persons," something we are told repeatedly that God is not into
doing. "respecting persons" means to judge a matter not on its merits and what happened who did what to who,
but the rank, or family relationship, or such issues, of the parties involved.
In other words, corruption and injustice.
And that is what Susanna is doing. The pope can do no wrong.
For some people, the pope can do no right, and I am not one of those.
As for whoever was complaining about Catholics having to defend themselves here and we need Christian unity, you
must understand that the typical Catholic basher DOES NOT CONSIDER YOU ARE CHRISTIANS AT ALL but that you
are headed for hell as long as you remain in the family of the Scarlet Whore. (the Roman church.) naturally
such are not going to be interested in working with you. And they see you as heathen to be converted to Christ.
Did you folks see that? Christine turning the table back to what she wants to keep arguing about?
I am protestant (and that is just a label not who I am) and do not care for the catholic religion, and catholic leadership but I do care for catholic people (many of whom are my family). I know in my heart that there are those who are trusting Christ as savior among them just as I know some of my protestant friends and family are believers too. But not all. We can all profess something with our mouths and leave actual trust in Jesus right out of our living day to day so that means it is neither catholic or protestant religion that saves, it is the Lord himself who does the saving of us sinners. It is a personal matter of Whose Hands we have trusted, and in repentance and faith, placed our souls eternity into. The nail scarred hands are the only ones doing the saving. Beyond that everything else is filler,Christine.
But Christine wants to prove some pointless point so she can have preeminence here. End of the day, she has not upbuilt anyone's faith, but is tearing down a blog in the process. She is using the differences between people to keep up "conversation" here that suits her bored out of her skull life.
I don't get that. I don't want to get that.
I was answering the person who complained Susanna follows the pope's lead. to some extent she does, but not as much as he said.
If you don't get that, then apparently you don't read. I didn't start this round.
Sounds to me like you want to use every opportunity to sound off to have preeminence here yourself. Why don't you scream and yell about other lengthy posters? I only hear me complained about.
Chiristina
Pope Benedict DID kiss the Quran.
thank you. I knew JP II did. It is pretty damn shameful.
Christina
That is BS about Benedict and that hunky little move that's like crossing your fingers behind your back.
He should not have been there, or done that.
Just a few months back even Francis made a big deal of Islam being a religion of peace.
Once again, read what the Quran says about Jesus' return and then tell me it is of "peace".
"I didn't start this round."
Doesn't matter. You keeping the fight going is is shameful too.
People can post here and post as much right or wrong as they know because we can all post things that are correct or don't quite square. People can pick and choose what they want to think about all of that. But you come along to try to explain it all for us "low brows" by the redundancy and pointlessness and obscure the truth even more! You are no bible scholar. You are just an internet freeloader riding on Constance's coattails.
We can understand fine without you, Christine.
Or we can choose to persist in error if we want to. You sure do.
anon 3:45
that was not crossing your fingers that is invisible spiritual attack the sign
that invokes the Trinity. Of course,
how much faith and intent he had is another matter, he had compromised himself too much, I doubt he was
ignorant of the implications of going to a mosque.
Do you think I think islam is of peace? I was attacking it here while Constance was still worried about New
Age setting the Abrahamic religions at each other.
"peace" means submission to islam, not peace like we think. It is all doubletalk. The moderates, influenced
by people old time moslem mullahs would call heretics and apostates, may actually believe it. But look how
they catagorize things. dar al islam house of peace is an islamic country, dar al harb house of war is any non
islamic country.
The biggest problem is islam is that while the koran can be tweaked with, the hadiths and the body of law built
on these can't. and they are totally ISIS compatible. The problem is not just stoning adulterers and gays. The
problem is death or conversion or pay jizzya for Christians and Jews, death for rival categories of islam
considered apostate, and death for any moslem who converts to Christianity or whatever. Plus highly restrictive rules for Christians and
Jews and churches.
and the four witness law, not two to get a death penalty as distinct from
lesser punishment in Torah, but 4, only male adult muslims, to get a conviction on anything. The justice
system is rigged to prevent justice. The rules on captives of war allow sexual assault, slavery is
acceptable, a slave is a sexual object while in the OT this is not the case. there is no minimum age
limit for marriage. and so forth. there are other problems.
"I was attacking it here while Constance was still worried about New
Age setting the Abrahamic religions at each other."
Yeah, we forgot it is your blog, and you are better than absolutely everyone else.
You need Jesus to rid you of your awful self-righteous pride.
there are serious problems with Fatima, I used to give it credence, but new details are out records of
the investigation
from 60 years ago. Celestial Secrets by I think the name is Fernandez.
the most problematic thing about Marian visions is that they come in the past few centuries to children,
but never did any visions come to children in the Bible, and almost never in the first thousand years of
Christianity. Visitations by Mary or a saint or even Jesus were brief, and not wordy, and rare.
The heavy focus on children seems to be a ploy to exploit sentimental notions about children. In earlier
centuries after the Great Schism they were usually to adults, but other problems exist. chief of which is how
God supposedly blathers on and on. That is a red flag in itself. God is
a Master of the martial arts principle of maximum effect for minimum effort. And "Jesus Christ is
the same yesterday, today and forever." So why the sudden change?
At Fatima before the vision, some angel like thing was seen several times, by the kids. It was fainter
and more distant, then each time was more solid seeming and closer. Also a child was seen running around on the
other side of a low wall. Malachi Martin warns that demons often have trouble duplicating the human form,
and the feet will be hidden one way or another. The woman the children saw did not say she was Mary, this was foisted on them by eager churchmen and neighbors.
This whole thing sounds like something that had to build power and take time to do a full manifestation, unlike someone acting in the power of God like an angel for instance they are just THERE no process to this.
THE MIRACLE OF THE SUN HAD NO EFFECT OUTSIDE WHERE IT OCCURRED. no observatory for instance noticed anything, nor anyone on the ground outside the location.
That means IT WAS A SUBJECTIVE INDUCED HALLUCINATION. IT WASN'T REAL.
http://www.cogwriter.com/FatimaShock2Chapters.pdf
Anonymous 2:20
Where exactly has Susanna "supported more than a few popes for accepting or kissing the Quran?"
I have never seen any evidence to support your claim.
So why don't you prove it by citing the evidence here chapter and verse along with a link to the particular thread to which you are referring.
Susanna,
Respectfully, nowhere in my comment did I mention anything about the ‘Peter in Rome’ issue, as it was not a point I wanted to address. In the first point of my comment above I had in mind the anon who kept insisting that Matthew 16:18 ‘proved’ that Peter was the first Pope, while also making this statement to Christine (I’m assuming it was the same anon), completely setting aside the ‘Peter in Rome’ issue:
When will you understand that the issue here is not about either Antioch or Rome? The issue is that Peter was appointed the FIRST POPE and Head of the Catholic Church BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF in 33 AD . . . period (end of subject).
In and of itself, using Matthew 16:18 to ‘prove’ this particular position will not work. Had the anon qualified the various statements (or at least one of them) with something like “According to Roman Catholic Tradition, Matthew 16:18…,” then I could understand. And, I probably would not have commented. However, as I pointed out my comment above, taken on their face, nowhere in this verse do we find in Jesus’ words any hint of a perpetual office. However, now that you’ve responded, I’ll respond to your comment.
My understanding is that from the RCC perspective, “Tradition” is appealed to in arriving at the conclusion that this verse indicates that Peter is the first Pope, bolstered in part using particular interpretations and translations of the writings of the Church Fathers. Yet, just like in Scripture, we do not have originals of these documents, and; hence, while I do believe we have a pretty fair idea of the gist of the Fathers’ writings, it seems fair to say there’ve been some changes, either accidental or quite purposeful, as there have been to an extent in NT manuscripts. In fact, NT textual critic and Koine Greek scholar Daniel Wallace has stated that the Latin writings in particular are in dire need of textual criticism, as these can help with NT textual criticism (as they paraphrase or quote from Scripture). That’s not to say that the Greek Fathers mss don’t need textual criticism.
As some have posited, and I’m inclined to agree with them, the Byzantine family of NT manuscripts have been redacted in order to ‘smooth’ out Greek grammar and syntax, and, e.g., to harmonize some of the differences in quotations of Jesus among the Synoptic Gospels (the KJV is notorious for following this), among other things. And, with this in mind, it seems quite probable that the Fathers’ mss were subject to similar methodologies, as well as other emendations to further other agendas, and I suggest even to a larger extent than Scripture, since the Fathers’ writings were understood as not on par with Scripture. To what extent they’ve been altered, I’ve no idea.
[cont]
[cont]
I know someone who is fluent in Koine Greek, and pretty good with Latin, who has an affinity for the Church Fathers material. In fact, his translations of two Father’s (Greek) were recently published in book form (amidst others’ translations of other Fathers’ works). Yet he is a Protestant. Certainly, if he determined that exegetically Matthew 16:18 declared Peter the first Pope, and if in his readings of the Fathers he were to discover that they affirmed apostolic succession, he’d convert to the Catholic Church. So far, he hasn’t. My point is that some interpret these writings one way, and some another (translation always involves a bit of interpretation). And, as you stated, there are different rules of faith.
As to the issue with Honorius, it seems rather charitable to blame Sergius rather than Honorius for the latter’s own position. From my perspective, if Honorius did nothing to denounce Sergius’ positive stance on monothelitism, then that is tantamount to agreement. (For those who don’t know, this is the belief that Christ had only one will – a divine will, but not a human will – yet see Matthew 26:39: “Yet, not as I will, but as you will.” So is Jesus’ [divine] will separate from God the Father, i.e., could God disagree with God?) The very fact that Constantinople III, the sixth Ecumenical Council – one of the Councils the RCC affirms – declared Honorius a heretic speaks volumes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Honorius_I
More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".
Correct me if I’m wrong, but, as I understand it, the RCC position is that all the Ecumenical Councils are deemed so because Rome was present at said Councils, or even was instrumental in the proceedings of these Councils. Bottom line, this would amount to a Pope (Agatho and/or Leo II) deeming a former Pope (Honorius) a heretic! What does this mean for the reign of Honorius?
We must keep in mind also that the word “anathema” means accursed.
"I had information a lot of people weren't getting......
something I already figured out.....
But Glory to God what I thought was pretty standard information apparently isn't, yet I got that
decades ago."
So you have it all figured out for the poor masses do you?
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back as you "give glory to God".
People are free to believe as they want. We don't have to all agree .
Belief is not only a matter of intellect, but revelation from God and sometimes upbringing. Sometimes people reject the faith of their upbringing. It's a complex subject.
People on this blog, most of whom claim to be some brand of Christians, should stop being so unkind to one another. There are plenty of terrorist types persecuting all kinds of Christians and Jews all over the world.
Jesus said paraphrasing: it was said, thou shall not kill but if you even say, you fool to your brother you are guilty of the fires of hell.
Jesus wanted people to understand that the
obedience starts in the heart.
If you believe in him and you want to disagree, there is no problem but character attacks regardless of what we think of another are ugly since we are ALL created in God's image, we should try to see the best in other people.
We will all be judged by what's in our hearts and by our faith, so that is for God alone to decide.
If some heathen read this blog, they would not be attracted to Jesus based on what they read.
Now back to the New Age.
Excellent deflection 3:02 A.M.
After Craig's cogent post.
Nothing to ponder there. Let's get back to New Age discussion!!!!
Anonymous at 3:02 AM -
EXCELLENT POST!!!
Thank you for your calm, rational perspective.
I wish someone would come along and explain to me that this isn't what it seems to be.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=31985
Say it ain't so Barry.
Please
The article seems to say that Obama's release of the info makes Israel look like its capabilities are our 1950s
and 1960s and that on research not on actual weapons. The intent is bad, and it makes Israel look weak enough
to attack.
The fact is, never mind their laboratories they got nuclear weapons, period. given or sold to
them. That is the open secret for decades. And I would think that the
Arab states and Iran know this, and are not going to think Israel is
merely in the developmental stage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option
before sniping at wikipedia, just read the article and go to the sources cited at the bottom of the page, click on the
numbers in the text to get there, and check the sources.
Paul, This is the final stages of the betrayal of Israel by our government. The Bible says Israel will be left alone and will be defenseless. That will be God's invitation to show the world who He is though and soon follows Israel's opportunity to finally see the LORD is the Lord Jesus Christ. Some very telling things here and more to come shortly. God said "I will bless them that bless thee, and I will curse them that curse thee". He will be following up now as it is clear that America would not repent and turn back from evil (and of course joining all of the rest of the world) and the final straw is Israel. Jerusalem is the burdensome stone for the entire world as you will read in Zechariah 12. We are going to have front row seats to this as the way for these happenings are at the ready. Jesus said: "Watch".
"Peace and safety (security)" are code words for what the globalist plan is about ;). But peace and safety for whom is the question. The globalist plan does not include free nations so bye bye America and Israel. this is the process we have been witnessing. Forcing Israel to give up what God said is theirs is going to bring on the abomination of desolation and what immediately follows that. (compare Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21). The end of the matter is that it will not bode well for those who fight against God. Touching Temple Mount and Jerusalem and that land to take it and put it into the hands of others as a political football to divide up the spoils and worse is the scenario (dividing it among the big 3?) that is mounting up to bring the wrath of the LORD upon them for they are touching the apple of His eye. God has never revoked His claim to that land and those people He exclusively gave it to.
Paul,
The declassified information is nothing new to anyone. It is old "news".
If someone wants to make something of the symbolic gesture, then I suppose there's something to be said about that (add it to the list of traitorous acts by Obama the Usurper). But it's not the horrible sellout that it might appear to be.
The only really concerning thing about it to me is that it might embolden Israel's enemies by solidifying and confirming in their minds the lack of support Israel has from the United States.
that and making it look like they are a lot more primitve than they are.
The timing is meant to stir up something.
Obama using it to provoke.
Old news perhaps but meant to entice Iran to compete.
A fools' game being played with Israel "dangling like a carrot on a stick".
Author: White House reveals 'hatred' for Israel
theconservativewife.blogspot.com/2015/03/author-white-house-reveals-for-israel.html
Craig,
I am sorry if I misread your post. The only reason I was commenting on the "Peter in Rome" issue at all is because Constance invited me to weigh in on the subject.
Since it was among the "hot topics" being discussed, I assumed ( wrongly it would appear ) that this was what you were referring to.
RE:In and of itself, using Matthew 16:18 to ‘prove’ this particular position will not work. Had the anon qualified the various statements (or at least one of them) with something like “According to Roman Catholic Tradition, Matthew 16:18…,” then I could understand. And, I probably would not have commented.
This is a valid point. You are correct in saying that we need to qualify our statements where there is a difference of religious interpretation.
As for the Honorius issue, anathema means exactly what it says. But according to the Catholic position on the matter, he was not anathematized for teachinfg heresy "ex cathedra," but for failing to use his Petrine charism to teach the truth "ex cathedra."
By the way, according to Catholic belief, papal infallibility does not preclude a pope from being a heretic. It simply guarantees that by the special protection of the Holy Spirit, a pope cannot teach heresy "ex cathedra."
Here is an article from Catholic Culture. Whether you agree with the Catholic position or not, the article explains the Catholic position on the issue with greater clarity.
GUILTY ONLY OF FAILURE TO TEACH
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3301
See also......
FULL TEXT OF THE CONDEMNATION OF POPE HONORIUS
https://archive.org/stream/a620530200chapuoft/a620530200chapuoft_djvu.txt
The first effort to claim infallibility for a pope was when one pope had declared the Franciscan way of life
Apostolic, and a later one retracted this and the approval of them. They answered that a pope can't contradict
a pope and its was game on.
In doing this, they did not limit it to faith and morals speaking ex cathedra but to any papal bull. By the time of the
formal declaration of this dogma, it was so limited probably for fear of
exactly what the protestants were worried about.
Regarding the filioque, when one pope says you cannot use the Creed in the Mass with this in it, and puts up two
silver shields of the Creed without it, and says he does not have the authority to make such a change only
an ecumenical council can do this,
And a subsequent pope proceeds to add it to the Creed anyway,
One of those two is wrong.
And it doesn't matter which, because both were speaking ex cathedra in terms of the faith and such an event
could not happen if the alleged special charism on popes existed.
that the Tome of Leo WAS NOT ACCEPTED until three days of comparing it to Cyrillian theology shows the pope was
not viewed as infallible or having the last word by virtue of his office.
that Pope Honorius could be anathematized, and that Constantinople against which the Bull of Excommunication was given by Humbert could respond by exommunicating the pope, and I don't think this was the first time either, shows that Rome was not viewed in the light that RC views it now.
Susanna,
Perhaps we could categorize Honorius’ inaction as that of sinning by omission rather than by commission. But, is this a distinction with a substantive difference (see James 4:17)? That is, from my perspective, keeping in mind James 4:17, this makes Honorius’ not infallible precisely because he did not explicitly state his stance (assuming he didn’t, but see below). Nonetheless, I recognize that you’re not likely to agree with me on this.
I should note that the Apostle Paul uses the term anathema in Galatians 1:9 to describe the fate of those teaching ‘another gospel,’ which the NAB (revised) renders “accursed,” while the NIV renders it “eternally condemned.”
From the 2nd link you sourced:
Of Honorius we have two fragments of a letter which were produced and read at the sixth Council. He writes to Sergius telling him that he has informed Cyrus of Alexandria that the new expressions "one or two operations" are to be dropped, the use of such expressions being most silly, vaw ^araiov [ED: Greek is garbled]. This was naturally condemned as heresy by the Council. But in this second fragment, Honorius implicitly teaches two operations, for he says rightly that the two natures work each what is proper to it, thus stultifying his own decision. The fragments read as if, after seeing the arguments of Sophronius, the Pope was trying to bolster up his wrong decision with orthodox arguments (emphasis added).
The bolded info re the 2nd fragment does not necessarily deny monothelitism, as Augustus H. Strong, a Baptist Reformed theologian, explicitly taught two natures and two operations with one will in his Systematic Theology (Three Volumes in One; Philadelphia, PA: Judson Press, 1943 (1907)):
…The two natures are bound together, not by the moral tie of friendship, nor by the spiritual tie which links the believer to his Lord, but by a bond unique and inscrutable, which constitutes them one person with a single consciousness and will – this consciousness and will including within their possible range both the human nature and the divine (p 684; emphasis added).
Strong’s position is certainly unique among theologians, whether Protestant, RCC or EO; and it appears to violate the Chalcedonian Definition, as it seems difficult to term a single-willed Christ, with said will encompassing the “possible range” of both human and divine, congruent with being “truly man.” But, I don’t think Strong saw it that way. In any case, it certainly violates Constantinople III.
Strong, then, was dyophysite, but monothelite, as contrasted with those who were monophysites and monothelites.
My point for bringing up Strong’s position is to illustrate that there may be another possibility with respect to Honorius – a position most unorthodox, if so. If the above constitutes all the extant info on Honorius’ thoughts on this subject, we cannot necessarily assume that this 2nd fragment agrees with Chalcedon (and Leo I). It may or it may not. Honorius may have had in mind something similar to Strong’s position of monothelite, yet dyophysite.
Christine,
You wrote: that the Tome of Leo WAS NOT ACCEPTED until three days of comparing it to Cyrillian theology shows the pope was not viewed as infallible or having the last word by virtue of his office.
This does not necessarily follow. My inclination is that it was more a matter of a language barrier. That is, those who hadn’t yet ‘bought in’ just weren’t sure they understood his words. To ask for clarification is not to deny authority.
However, having stated that, I’m not convinced that all others viewed Rome as supreme. Though I must admit that I deem Leo’s Tome a very fine exposition of Scripture.
Craig,
that is a very interesting point about Strong. I think part of the problem here is how you define "will."
Greek philosophical terms and Orthodoxy seem to define it as something more like inclination of a
nature, like for instance, the inclination of a diurnal creature is
to get up and run around by day, while the inclination of a nocturnal creature is to get up and run around by night.
The "gnomic" will is the warped will of the fallen human, and is the kind of will Jesus did not have.
I, and I suspect most people over the past few hundred years, are used to the idea of the will as the act of
choice and desire itself especially when the desire is favored instead of resisted, and especially
DETERMINATION, focus, adamantine drive to get one's choice accomplished. aka "will power."
This is why I have had trouble understanding the concept in Orthodox anthropology though I accept that they know what they are talking about and I kind of understand it now.
So perhaps what Strong was talking about, was will in the sense of choice and direction and determination at the level of the PERSON Jesus Christ, Who would decide and direct which nature's will or inclination would operate openly (as distinct from always being around like a program in a computer that runs in the background whether actively engaged or not).
However, since the monothelites worked in a different philosophical context, unaffected by Hegel or Kant
or Nietzsche or whoever, I think perhaps they were more clearly off the mark than Strong could be excused as being.
Another problem is choice of words. Even if it works out that all these categories are going to be together
in heaven, that in fact the contrasting views of Orthodoxy and various heretics (except for the most
extreme and explicit of them) are just different views and expressions of the same thing, like the blind men
feeling an elephant and describing it as a pillar, a wall, a rope, a fan, etc.,
the choice of words to express is important. Because even if one person means something correct by a word,
another person may mean something very incorrect by that same word. The history of the dogmatic definitions of the Councils is the history of
seeking precision of expression.
I’ve been working on an article off and one for about 3 (4?) years; so, I have the following written as a part of a (very lengthy!) footnote. It seems Strong (like Hawthorne, whom I’m critiquing) wishes to avoid, in his mind, a sort of quasi-Nestorianism:
Strong (pp 694-696) affirms a version of monothelitism seemingly akin to Hawthorne’s: …Person is nature separately subsisting, with powers of consciousness and will. Since the human nature of Christ has not and never had a separate subsistence, it is impersonal, and in the God-man the Logos furnishes the principle of personality. It is equally important to observe that self-consciousness and self-determination do not belong to nature as such, but only to personality. For this reason, Christ has not two consciousnesses and two wills, but a single consciousness and a single will. This consciousness and will, moreover, is always theanthropic – an activity of the one personality which unites in itself the human and the divine (Mark 13:32; Luke 22:42)…The theory of two consciousnesses and two wills, first elaborated by John of Damascus, was an unwarranted addition to the orthodox doctrine propounded at Chalcedon…Nature has consciousness and will, only as it is manifested in person. The one person has a single consciousness and will, which embraces within its scope at all times a human nature, and sometimes a divine. Notice we do not say Christ’s human nature had no will, but only that it had none before its union with the divine nature, and none separately from the one will which was made up of the human and divine united… (p 695). But, one must wonder if such a ‘divine will’, containing in itself the human will, could amount to a human nature that is “fully man” as Chalcedon and Scripture (Philippians 2:7; Heb 2:14-18) requires. Would this not entail a hybrid divine-human will, and thus amount to a human will superior to the typical human will in human nature, i.e., wouldn’t this be a super-human will? As Charles Hodge states: …[H]umanity [cannot] be possessed of the attributes of divinity, for then it would cease to be humanity…the finite cannot be infinite [Systematic Theology (In Three Volumes (Peabody, MA: Hendricksen, 2008 (4th prtg)), II.387]. Hodge continues, Neither is it possible that the divine and human natures should be so mingled as to result in a third, which is neither purely human nor purely divine, but theanthropic. Christ’s person is theanthropic, but not his nature; for that would make the finite infinite, and the infinite finite (II.389). While Hodge is specifically referring to wholesale monophysitism, this would seem to apply individually to such a ‘divine-human’ will described by Strong and Hawthorne. Just like Chalcedon implies, Hodge also specifies that there are two wills and two centers of consciousness, for surely this is what is meant by the “rational soul” language at Chalcedon: …[A]s intelligence, sensibility, and will are the properties of the human soul, without which it ceases to be a soul, it follows that the human soul of Christ retained its intelligence, sensibility and will. But intelligence and will are no less the essential properties of the divine nature, and therefore were retained after its union with the human nature in Christ. In teaching, therefore, that Christ was truly man and truly God, the Scriptures teach that He had a finite intelligence and will, and also an infinite intelligence. In Him, therefore, as the Church has ever maintained, there were and are two wills, two…operations (II.389-390).
the pleasure vs. pain response a kind of willing and consciousness is evident at the level of the cell of what it is attracted to accepts or rejects and the unicellular organisms, like paramecium and amoebae.
This level of will would definitely exist in the human nature, and communicating its feelings to the Person would cringe at the thought of torture and death, but the Person Jesus Christ kept His human CHOOSING form of will in line with His divine will and even at the level of the human, like a martyr who faces death for Jesus, kept His choosing form of will in line with God's will "Not My will but Thine be done" in Gethsemane.
This issue of will, well, the problem is defining will. The problem of a hybrid neither fully divine anymore (less than divine) nor fully human (more than human) is exactly the problem presented by any form of monophysitism.
Craig 10:23 P.M.
Re:Perhaps we could categorize Honorius’ inaction as that of sinning by omission rather than by commission. But, is this a distinction with a substantive difference (see James 4:17)? That is, from my perspective, keeping in mind James 4:17, this makes Honorius’ not infallible precisely because he did not explicitly state his stance (assuming he didn’t, but see below). Nonetheless, I recognize that you’re not likely to agree with me on this.
This is, as you suggest, your perspective and that of many Protestants. The Catholic position is that Pope Honorius would have had to teach heresy "ex cathedra" in order for him to be the "smoking gun" in the argument against the "Petrine tradition" as it was referred to in the days of Pope Honorius.
There has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council's condemnation of Pope Honorius, the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299-313). Some have maintained, with Pennacchi, that he was indeed condemned as a heretic, but that the Oriental bishops of the council misunderstood the thoroughly orthodox (and dogmatic) letter of Honorius; others, with Hefele, that the council condemned the heretically sounding expressions of the pope (though his doctrine was really orthodox); others finally, with Chapman (see below), that he was condemned
because he did not, as he should have done, declare authoritatively the Petrine tradition of the Roman Church. To that tradition he had made no appeal but had merely approved and enlarged upon the half-hearted compromise of Sergius. . . Neither the pope nor the council consider that Honorius had compromised the purity of the Roman tradition, for he had never claimed to represent it. Therefore, just as today we judge the letters of Pope Honorius by the Vatican definition and deny them to be ex cathedra, because they do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church, so the Christians of the seventh century judged the same letters by the custom of their day, and saw that they did not claim what papal letters were wont to claim, viz., to speak with the mouth of Peter in the name of Roman tradition. (Chapman)
cont.
cont..
The letter of the council to Pope Leo, asking, after the traditional manner, for confirmation of its Acts, while including again the name of Honorius among the condemned Monothelites, lay a remarkable stress on the magisterial office of the Roman Church, as, in general, the documents of the Sixth General Council favour strongly the inerrancy of the See of Peter. "The Council", says Dom Chapman, "accepts the letter in which the Pope defined the faith. It deposes those who refused to accept it. It asks [the pope] to confirm its decisions. The Bishops and Emperor declare that they have seen the letter to contain the doctrine of the Fathers. (Pope)Agatho speaks with the voice of Peter himself; from Rome the law had gone forth as out of Sion; Peter had kept the faith unaltered."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04310a.htm
________________________________
As thjis and other articles hint, there is even a question as to whether or not Honorius actually embraced the heresy in question. But as I said earlier, in Roman Catholicism, papal infallibility does not mean a pope cannot sin or become a heretic in his personal beliefs.
In your earlier post at 9:43 P.M. you wrote:
I know someone who is fluent in Koine Greek, and pretty good with Latin, who has an affinity for the Church Fathers material. In fact, his translations of two Father’s (Greek) were recently published in book form (amidst others’ translations of other Fathers’ works). Yet he is a Protestant. Certainly, if he determined that exegetically Matthew 16:18 declared Peter the first Pope, and if in his readings of the Fathers he were to discover that they affirmed apostolic succession, he’d convert to the Catholic Church.
With respect, your acquaintance's proficiency in Greek and "affinity for the Church Fathers" notwithstanding, if his ecclesiology is founded on "Sola Scriptura" as the final word, then while apostolic succession appears to be hinted at by Christ's use of the future tense in Matthew 16:18 and in other passages of Scripture where Christ is quoted as giving Peter the keys and where Peter is portrayed as first among the Apostles, but it will probably not be affirmed as extending beyond Peter as it would according to the Catholic Rule of Faith which is Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
Susanna,
"The Catholic position is that Pope Honorius would have had to teach heresy "ex cathedra" in order for him to be the "smoking gun" in the argument against the "Petrine tradition" as it was referred to in the days of Pope Honorius."
I think the real smoking gun is Leo III's behavior and statements regarding the filioque, and there are two smoking guns there.
That he did not consider he could change the Creed (though he himself accepted the filioque), only an
Ecumenical Council could do so, which shows he did not consider himself superior to councils,
and that he either erred in ex cathedra denouncing its use in the Mass and claiming he lacked the authority to change the Creed,
or that his successor who did change the Creed erred speaking ex cathedra if the filioque is wrong,
and even if it is not wrong, erred in making the change if Leo III was correct he could not change the Creed.
Now either papal infallibility (and superiority to all other church authority) is wrong,
or an antipope did the addition and your whole lineage may be open to question (or not).
Craig, why don't you ask your friend what he thinks of the Peter thing and Apostolic Succession, don't rely on
his behavior (especially since he might figure that there is a defacto lineage from Peter in any ordinations
in protestantism since they dead end in properly ordained priests of the RC at some point), or may be savvy to
the petrine nature of all Orthodox Patriarchates, in which case he is probably contemplating converting in
that direction,
or, may figure that since the purpose of the Apostolic Succession is to preserve correct doctrine, joining
something is less important than what you believe and what is taught.
More of Susannah's crap. It really is sickening. How can some of you that have some intellect and who are not catholic zombies stand it?!
This goes well beyond good manners to keep quiet and some of you have kept quiet for far too long.
She never bases anything on the Glory of God's Word. Oh sure she will claim it is so, but practically everything out of her mouth is what she was told to believe, whether from a man who lived several centuries ago, or a man who dons the white outfit today.
She is led by men, not God.
anon 10:28
yes she is too loyal to the RC organization b/c she thinks it is only way to be loyal to Christ.
but men of long ago are testimony to what early church believed, and second century writers tell that the
Eucharist
IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST and that a real change occurs when the Eucharistic prayers are said.
Most Catholic bashers here except original type Lutherans if any reject this.
RC supporters and Newadvent site reject the testimony of St. Irenaeus, who ought to know, that St. Peter
gave up his episcopate to his successor before he died, just like he gave up his episcopate to his
Antiochene successor before he left, so was not bishop of Rome when he died.
The validity of words of men of long ago is not that they are additions to Scripture, but that they tell what
happened, just like protestants will reference Josephus and a pagan writer or two to show what was going on then.
While Susanna may revere them as "fathers" you need not do so to learn from them what the churches were doing
and believing back then. And they did believe in transformation/transubstantiation and
they did have a hierarchical church structure with some bishops above others and a college of bishops to
handle problems in specific churches.
That Perpetua saw fit to pray for her brother she believed was damned and who had died in unbelief, shows that the present teaching of most Orthodox and the RC that only those in purgatory can be prayed for but those who are in hell its no use was not taught then.
Also it shows that no point praying for ANY dead was not taught in the first few centuries of the Church either.
Note that the proof text for not praying for the dead is the last few verses of Revelation, but that ONLY
ADDRESSES THE SITUATION AFTER THE LAST JUDGEMENT which is in the future.
Anon 10:28,
Susanna is merely defending the RCC position, to which she adheres. You may disagree with her position, but calling it “crap” is not helpful.
Susanna (and all),
I may have more to say later (especially re: the future tense in Matt 16:18); but, for now I want to post the following about sola Scriptura, as there appears to be much confusion on just what this entails among Protestants, the RCC and the EO.
Some adhere to what is called in the following article ”solo” Scriptura (the “every man and his Bible” idea), rather than the historical doctrine known as sola Scripture. Big difference! There IS a “tradition” in sola Scriptura, recognizing that our understanding of Scripture is cumulative, to include such things as the Ecumenical Councils (though not necessarily the canons associated with them). I’ll quote a bit from Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes:
The adoption of the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura has resulted in numerous biblical, theological, and practical problems within Protestant churches. These problems have become the center of attention in recent years as numerous Protestants have converted to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy claiming that their conversion was due in large part to their determination that the doctrine of sola Scriptura was indefensible. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists have been quick to take advantage of the situation, publishing numerous books and articles devoted to critiquing the doctrine of sola Scriptura. One issue, however, that neither the converts nor the apologists seem to understand is that the doctrine they are critiquing and rejecting is the revisionist doctrine of sola Scriptura, not the classical Reformation doctrine.
… To summarize the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or the Reformation doctrine of the relation between Scripture and tradition, we may say that Scripture is to be understood as the sole source of divine revelation; it is the only inspired, infallible, final, and authoritative norm of faith and practice. It is to be interpreted in and by the church; and it is to be interpreted within the hermeneutical context of the rule of faith. As Richard Muller observes, the Reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura did not ever mean, "all of theology ought to be constructed anew, without reference to the church's tradition of interpretation, by the lonely exegete confronting the naked text." That this is the Reformation doctrine of Scripture, tradition, and authority may be demonstrated by an examination of the reformers' writings…
… In contrast with the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, the revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura is marked by radical individualism and a rejection of the authority of the church and the ecumenical creeds. If we compare the statements made by advocates of "solo" Scriptura with the statements of Reformational Christians above, the difference is immediately evident…
… The revisionist doctrine of "solo" Scriptura has become so entrenched in the modern church that many Protestant Christians today will sympathize more with the sentiments of the liberal and sectarian clergymen quoted above than they will with the teaching of the reformers. The doctrine of "solo" Scriptura, however, is as problematic and dangerous today as it was in previous centuries. It remains unbiblical, illogical, and unworkable…
That is an awesome clarification Craig.
Anonymous @ 10:28 AM
How very IRONIC that you insist that Catholics are 'led by men, not God'.... when Protestantism (along with its various sects) was begun by MEN (such as Martin Luther and King Henry VIII) who broke away from the Catholic Church that Jesus (who is GOD) founded in 33 AD!!! It's quite obvious that Protestants are the ones who have been led by MEN.
And King Henry VIII really had 'a good reason' for leaving, didn't he? He got angry with Pope Clement VII for refusing to grant him an annulment from his marriage to his first wife Catherine of Aragon, so he could be free to marry Ann Boleyn. Thus, King Henry VIII broke away from the Catholic Church, as he had complete control over the Church of England. Poor Ann didn't have a happy ending though.... when she failed to give Henry a son, she was arrested, found guilty of 'high treason' and beheaded!!!
Anonymous @ 10:28 AM
WHO are you to dare to commit slander by accusing Catholics of not 'giving glory to God's word'.... when so many of you are 'cafeteria Christians' who often select those portions of the Bible that you happen to agree with, and reject the ones that you disagree with.
FYI: God's 'word' is God's WORD.... period!!!
anon 12:06
I have to agree with you. It is only by ignoring some things and over emphasizing others that the abominable
doctrine of double predestrination could develop. Augustine gave it a leg up but Calvin is Augustine on steroids.
HEADS UP, America!!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3013900/Fears-martial-law-special-ops-set-swarm-Southwest-operate-undetected-civilians-ve-deemed-HOSTILE-massive-military-exercise.html
When Catholics go to mass, they hear a reading from the Old Testament; they say or sing one of the Psalms; then they listen to a reading from the epistles; then a gospel reading. Catholics follow a 3 year cycle of Scripture reading; so, a Catholic who goes to church faithfully will (over the 3 years) hear nearly the entire Bible read.
Craig,
Re:"I may have more to say later (especially re: the future tense in Matt 16:18); but, for now I want to post the following about sola Scriptura, as there appears to be much confusion on just what this entails among Protestants, the RCC and the EO."
Regarding Matthew 16:18, I don't know that there are any new translations of Scripture that would "translate" Matthew 16:18 in anything but the future tense.
Re:Some adhere to what is called in the following article ”solo” Scriptura (the “every man and his Bible” idea), rather than the historical doctrine known as sola Scripture. Big difference! There IS a “tradition” in sola Scriptura, recognizing that our understanding of Scripture is cumulative, to include such things as the Ecumenical Councils (though not necessarily the canons associated with them). I’ll quote a bit from Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes:
I have never heard of "solo Scriptura."
Regarding "sola Scriptura," I beg to differ with you. As far as Catholics are concerned, whatever the historical "sola Scriptura" subsequently morphed into, it is the classical Reformation doctrine which originated with Martin Luther who not only invented it in order to get rid of the papacy, but also contradicted himself in so doing since it is nowhere taught in the Bible. Luther also decided to ditch the Septuagint, which, when combined with the New Testament, gives explicit Scriptural evidence for the divinity of Christ which can be summed up in one simple Greek word. KYRIOS!
Now although I have never heard of "solo Scriptura," I have heard of "prima Scriptura" which is embraced by the Anglican Communion, the Methodist Church and Eastern Orthodoxy and does take into account the writings of at least the Apostolic Fathers.
Is this what you are referring to?
Lutheranism, on the other hand, teaches that the Bible of the Old and New Testaments is the only divinely inspired book and the only source of divinely revealed knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
_________________________
While 2 Timothy 3:16-17 is the usual proof text cited in defense of "sola Scriptura," what Timothy 3:16-17 actually says is that the Bible is "profitable," (not "sufficient" as some would have it) but not that it is mandatory for teaching every individual point of theology.
As a Catholic, I would be far more sympathetic to "prima Scriptura" than I would be to "sola Scriptura" because for Catholics, sacred Scripture is not only part of the Sacred tradition, but is inseparable from it. Not even the Pope is permitted to officially teach anything that would contradict Sacred Scriptures. Moreover, even those Catholic dogmas that are not explicitly found in the Scriptures ( i.e the term "Trinity," ) do not contradict the Scriptures.
cont...
cont...
Contrast with sola scriptura
Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates "by the scripture alone". The latter doctrine as understood by many Protestants—particularly Evangelicals—is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.
However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.
Catholicism
The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation is clear on the total equality of Scripture with Sacred Tradition when it says that "both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence" because together they "form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church." So, in one sense, Scripture has no primacy over Tradition, but an ancient tradition holds that the word of God, though equally authoritative in whichever form it comes, comes primarily in the form of Sacred Scripture, and thus we should seek for Sacred Doctrine primarily in the Scriptures. As Thomas Aquinas said:
...[S]acred doctrine...properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors.
For this reason, some sources say that prima scriptura is the normative Catholic approach. Yves Congar referred to prima scriptura as the "normative primacy of Scripture" as he described the work of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. Pope John Paul II in an address to academics in 1986 said, "Theology must take its point of departure from a continual and updated return to the Scriptures read in the Church." This statement has been taken by some as support for interpreting the Church's teaching in terms of the prima scriptura perspective.
Eastern Orthodoxy
Eastern Orthodoxy also teaches prima scriptura. An analogy is made where the entirety of church life is compared to a jeweled necklace, of which the most precious gem is the large diamond in the center, representing scripture. The other gems represent other parts of the Holy Tradition. While none of the other jewels are equal to the diamond, they nonetheless contribute to its beauty; the diamond looks best as part of the whole necklace (i. e., when viewed within the context of Church tradition). Sola scriptura, which is analogous to ripping the diamond out of the necklace because one prefers to view it on its own, only detracts from the diamond's beauty and value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura
_______________________________
Susanna,
"Moreover, even those Catholic dogmas that are not explicitly found in the Scriptures ( i.e the term "Trinity," ) do not contradict the Scriptures."
The term is not in the Scriptures but the FACTS are. The Scriptures teach the Trinity and if you'd never heard of it,
you'd have to invent the dogma under whatever threeness indicating term, in order to make all Scripture taken
as a whole on the subject of God make sense and not be contradictory to itself.
As for having to check messages from angels or from an Apostle miraculously appear, Paul says pretty
much that and so does John.
Gal. 1:8, I John 4:4
between "Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach."
and
" As Thomas Aquinas said:
...[S]acred doctrine...properly uses the authority of the canonical Scriptures as an incontrovertible proof, and the authority of the doctors of the Church as one that may properly be used, yet merely as probable. For our faith rests upon the revelation made to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on the revelations (if any such there are) made to other doctors."
I don't see much difference.
What I do see in terms of various visionaries and especially the weird phenomenon of "locutions" is a total
lack of testing the spirits.
anonymous 10:28,
If your behavior is an example of what it means to be a "good Christian," then it is little wonder if someone visiting this blog and reading your ugly maniacal rants were to prefer to become an atheist rather than to have anything to do with the kind of hate-filled "Christianity" you represent.
Your behavior is included in what is called "giving scandal." Through your own repulsive behavior, you make Christianity appear repulsive to people who might otherwise be attracted to Christianity.
In so doing, you are no better than those who give scandal in other ways ( i.e. sexual misconduct ) since the end result is the same.
If you are as devoted to the "Glory of God's Word" as you claim to be, then maybe you would be well-advised go and check your Bible to review what Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has to say about those who give scandal.
Large hint: it involves millstones!
Christine,
Re:"Moreover, even those Catholic dogmas that are not explicitly found in the Scriptures ( i.e the term "Trinity," ) do not contradict the Scriptures."
The term is not in the Scriptures but the FACTS are. The Scriptures teach the Trinity and if you'd never heard of it,
you'd have to invent the dogma under whatever threeness indicating term, in order to make all Scripture taken
as a whole on the subject of God make sense and not be contradictory to itself.
I thought that is pretty much what I said. The term is implied but not stated. Apparently, this is what Tertullian was thinking when he coined the term "Trinity."
"Trinity" is simply a shortened form of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit."
re:What I do see in terms of various visionaries and especially the weird phenomenon of "locutions" is a total
lack of testing the spirits.
In some cases, that is true. However, I was not defending private revelations, per se. The only reason I mentioned Fatima and Elena Aiello is because I was responding to Mark's post about private revelations that happened to included some grim prophecies about Russia.
But if you had been paying attention since you started posting on this blog you would know that I have said again and again that Catholics do not have to believe in Private Revelations.....not even those that the Church says are worthy of belief.
Susanna, I know that Roman Catholics do not HAVE to believe in private revelations.
But these have shaped Catholicism as we know it today, and play a major role in what I call pop Catholicism. They are treated as if Dogma.
When I critiqued Fatima on youtube, someone commented that I was opposing God or something like that. What does that tell you?
RC may not be required to believe them, but they are not required to NOT believe in them on a par with the rest of Tradition.
And obviously they have shaped formal doctrine in the case of the Immaculate Conception. While the
notion did develop without help from a vision, it had plenty of help later from visions, that can't have been
ignored by the pope and definitely were not ignored by those who held to the belief before it was declared doctrine.
While you may have been well catechized and took such to heart as more than just stuff to recite to get
confirmed so your family wouldn't be mad at you, the vast majority are another matter, to judge by the deep
faith they put in such visions and sometimes hostility to those who don't. One person advertising medals and so forth online, said such things are "what make us Catholic"!
the popularity of Medjugorje despite official RC opposition to it, should tell you something about the flock in general.
And when priests and bishops believe in some visionary, it can't help but affect the parish they affect and
give it more credence than the standard rules allow.
At least one order, the Jesuit, was founded because of one man's visions. That tends to undermine the not-
required-to-believe thing. and once an incident is declared worthy of credence (but not required) the
average person is going to take it as validated as required. The visionary who contradicts another visionary, or who has content that goes against later doctrine (like Catherine of Siena, whose order opposed immaculate conception, being told by the Virgin Mary that she was not conceived immaculately, while the rival order that supported this had a vision supporting this) then the visionary misremembered something how convenient.
Whether its what you have hammered into your head in an order, or from TV and ends times panicking
preachers, you are likely to have dreams and visions of whatever you fill your mind with. I give credence
to very few things I've heard of.
Many thanks to Craig, Susanna, Christine, et al, for the discussion of Sola / Prima / "Solo" Scriptura. It has been very clarifying!
The respect for the authority and relevance of tradition and ancestral wisdom that was rooted in "primary source" Christian experiences and writings has largely been forgotten, ignored, or discarded. And that has led to the "theological anarchy" we see everywhere today.
Too many people these days are "led by the heart", and scripture says "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; Who can understand it?" Jer. 17:9
Susanna,
Briefly, as I don’t have much time at the moment, the section you quoted titled Contrast with sola scriptura is illustrating the very point the article I reference is explaining is a faulty understanding of sola Scriptura, which is more along the lines of, as the author calls it, “solo” Scriptura.
I’ve a feeling there are some posting and reading here on Constance’s site who would fall into the “solo” Scriptura camp.
Christie ~
I am just curious. Are you some type of paid 'tool'.... in your obvious attempts (24 /7) to distract and deflect?
The reason I ask is that first, Constance asks Susanna for her opinion (which she often does, because she respects Susanna's input and excellent research skills).... but you just have to put in your two cents without being asked.
Then Craig and Susanna have a very civil and intelligent discussion.... and, again, you have to put in your two cents without being asked.
BUTT OUT, CHRISTINE from other people's conversations.... you are only succeeding in embarrassing yourself on this International blog!!!
Craig,
When you have more time, I would certainly be interested in reading more of what you have to say about "solo Scriptura" vs. "sola" or "prima" Scriptura.
Christine,
I am partly in agreement with you insofar as some Catholics have degenerated into "apparition chasers."
When challenged for disobedience, when asked not to promote said apparitions or their messages, their most infamous meme is "I would rather believe in God than man."
Of course, what they really mean -sometimes without realizing it - is that they would rather believe the seers of apparitions than the Church.
One such apparition is Bayside, New York which was condemned.
Another is Medjugorje. No final judgement has as yet been made on Medjugorje, but just recently, the St. Louis Archdiocese cancelled a speech that was to be given by a Medjugorje seer named Ivan Dragicevic.
Instead of obeying the lawful church authorities Ivan Dragicevic thumbed his nose at the CDF ( Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith)and held the public apparition in a private home. such disobedience does not bode well for a positive judgement on Medjugorje.
Earlier in November, 2013,
In a move that evidently surprised those who are promoting the validity of the Medjugorje apparitions, the head of the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has issued a letter concerning Medjugorje to the USCCB for distribution to all American bishops. The letter instructs that “clerics and the faithful” may not “participate in meetings, conferences or public celebrations in which the credibility” of the Marian apparitions at Medjugorje “are taken for granted.”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2013/11/vatican-bans-medjugorje-apparitions-in-us-churches/
_______________________________
In any case, it would appear that what Bayside is to certain ultra right wing Traditionalists, Medjugorje is to certain ultra left wing Charismatics, the so-called "pluralists."
anon 6:15
butt out yourself and go learn what public forums, comment sections, etc. are on the Internet.
these are not private conversations. these are people in a shared room and anyone can comment. And I don't notice anyone else complaining.
That's just it, Christine.... narcissists like you rarely notice that people have been complaining about you (not to mention calling you out to your face) for years now!!! Take time to go back and read what others have to say about you.... rather than remaining in your own little ego-driven 'bubble' and concentrating on what you are going to post next.
anon 7:26
I notice all the disruptive efforts to keep big picture analysis out of this, I am referring to the immediate issue of conversations involving Susanna.
as for calling people out, I have been calling you and your crew or similars at least out as New Age moles, among other things, as these become more and more apparent by your behavior.
I know what people say about me, and generally they start screaming if I hit a nail on the head. And at least one of them has been called out for grossness towards me here.
Actually I would miss Christine's posts. She is so 'articulate' when sprinkling her long, rambling rants and verbage with words like 'stuff' and 'thing.' LOL
Christine, why haven't you answered this question from Anonymous @ 6:15 PM???
Re: "I am just curious. Are you some type of paid 'tool'.... in your obvious attempts (24/7) to distract and deflect?"
because I called out the questioner as the one who is doing the disruption and deflection. So are you. How much are you getting paid for this and did you used to post and repost spam spam spam several years ago?
Christine @ 7:45 PM, etc.
Often, it's the person who has been accused who DEFLECTS by turning the tables and accusing others of the very same thing.
We Catholics KNOW who we are. We are not a 'crew' or a 'cult' or (God forbid) 'New Age' or 'spammers' (wouldn't even begin to know how!).... and we certainly don't feel that we have to PROVE anything to you.
We are simply sick and tired of the SLANDER directed at us by MISINFORMED individuals on this blog (and you know who you are).
you claim to be Catholic, which I doubt, but the bulk of the disruptive and distorting behavior here I refer to
DID NOT HAPPEN IN ANY RC RELATED CONTEXT.
Well, the only thing that matters to me is that God KNOWS - and I KNOW - that I am a devout traditional Catholic and Christian and have been all of my life.
However, your actions and behavior (on a daily basis) does make people WONDER if you are some type of 'paid tool' sent to disrupt this blog.
trad cath, eh? bayside I suppose?
so instead of complaining, why don't you read us all a lecture of what you think we should know about or focus on?
Christine @ 8:31 PM
Re: "trad cath, eh? bayside I suppose?"
WOW... if you ARE a paid tool, they need to ask for their money back.
You are so CONFUSED and have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.... when you try to 'label' Catholics and what YOU THINK we believe.
However, I notice that 'baiting' Catholics is your Mode of Operation.
I have debated those same old TIRED, BIASED 'arguments' ad nauseam over the last 8 years on this blog.... and I have no intention of taking the bait from someone like you, who is too ignorant to even bother to do her homework.
as usual, whatever cover you claim, when challenged to produce anything you come up with zilch. Supposedly I
or whoever in the past you targetted are disruptive or whatever, keeping info from others or preventing
posting, blog hogging, whatever.
but when challenged to produce the sort of thing you think should be here instead of me or whoever you
were attacking, you come up with.....NOTHING.
Christine @ 8:34 PM
Re: "so instead of complaining, why don't you read us all a lecture of what you think we should know about or focus on?"
Well, here's a novel idea....
How about NOT focusing on slicing and dicing CATHOLICS???
Christine @ 8:57 PM
You mean whomever I was attacked BY would be more correct.
Too bad.... you should have been around back then, Christine. Sorry you missed it.... your loss.
I refuse to relive all of those same old tired, biased 'myths' about Catholics that certain MISINFORMED individuals keep asking, getting answers to, and asking again and again ad nauseam. It is quite obvious that, for some individuals, it has become a kind of blood sport'.... and I'm not here for anyone's 'entertainment.'
I haven't been doing all that, most of them are also anti Orthodox I only deal with legitimate issues. Must have a nerve made you a tad uncertain?
your whole series of posts is a distraction. Where is appropriate anti New Age information?
"your whole series of posts is a distraction. Where is appropriate anti New Age information? "
Really now?
No one, repeat, no one is more a distraction you.
If you had any class whatsoever you wouldn't even go there but learn from what others are telling you instead of try to turn to tables to accuse someone else of the very things you do.
what people say they start when I hit on serious issues. when I provide weapons to use in debate with New Agers or to turn people from such who are getting interested.
When I give a big picture analysis instead of some shred here and scrap there. you don't got the attention span for it, let others read in peace who do have the attention span.
When I point out the deceptions in both capitalism and American exceptionalism and conflicts between these and The Bible.
When I point out we are going to set off WW 3.
I think the trad cath thing is just another fake cover. what you really want is to either not have your illusions challenged, or else to shut down a really seriously dangerous line of thought that might screw up your New Age or whatever game plan.
I repeat - its when I hit on something important others are missing or being misinformed on or provide a solution to a problem instead of just "alerting" about it, that I get attacked.
That tells me most of my attackers aren't worth paying attention to, except to see what you're up to now.
Anonymous @ 9:33 PM
Re: "Where is appropriate anti New Age information?"
(Says the person who has been spending endless hours vilely attacking Catholics for days now.)
And just HOW would you know that I haven't been posting anti-New Age information over the years?
After you remove your foot from your mouth (or your keyboard), you need to know a few things. I have been posting anti-New Age information for YEARS as one of the many 'anonymous' posters here. Often, it might just be links to various articles.
Recently, I have come back in order to defend Catholics who are once again under attack here.
Not only that, but I am very close friends with at least 8 contributors to this blog (two of whom are MAJOR contributors to anti-New Age information on this blog).
Furthermore, none of them would EVER stoop so low as to attack Catholics.
Now, that's the definition of 'class'.... so, pay attention and you just might learn something!!!
P.S. If you ever decide to stop posting attacks on Catholics, you will no longer have me here as a 'distraction.'
CORRECTION....
My reply @ 10:20 PM should have been addressed to Christine @ 9:26 PM.... and NOT to Anonymous @ 9:33 PM. My deepest apologies.
Christine @ 9:26 PM
Re: I only deal with legitimate issues."
Oh, you mean like 'Bayside'? Yeah, that's real 'legitimate' to us Catholics. LOL
10:20 P.M.
Your numerous posts exaggerating Christine's part in the back and forth between 'Wonder Woman' Susanna, Craig, and others, as "Catholics who are once again under attack here" is just that, a huge exaggeration!!!
Now if you accused me of such things, you would be much closer to the truth!
I don't need deep study of church history/church fathers, he said, she said, to draw a conclusion as to weather Catholicism is a part of Christ's true church, or if its a quasi christian cult. I have not the time for that, nor is it necessary. I have the Holy Spirit to teach me what is real, and what is not. I will rely on that, rather than never ending study.
Matthew 7:16
He shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Catholicism, rather than presenting a straight forward gospel message, presents a vain religious show to ensnare their followers into following their dictates rather than pastoring people to follow the One True Shepard of the sheep. The worship of the Savior is, to say the least, infused with, to say the least, a deep veneration of the so called Pope, Mary, The Saints, Priests, Cardinals, church relics, ext etc.
When a man or a woman are thrilled to get a glimpse of the Pope, or to even be able to touch his hand, or to bow, and kiss his ring, then that worshiper is definitely on the wrong path! When worshipers endlessly pray repetitious prayers using their rosary beads, then they are on the wrong path. When they pray to statues of Mary, and the Saints, then they are on the wrong path.
The only worship we really need is the knowledge that the Creator of the universe was born in a manger, and died a painful death so that I, a sinner can have eternal life! That's enough to satisfy me!
Now, when we listen to Francis babble on about atheists, homosexuals, space aliens, global warming etc.etc. ext. Is this the voice of someone "feeding the sheep", someone speaking sound wisdom that is in sync with the gospel? Or, is this a wolf in sheep's clothing? Francis doesn't present the simple gospel. He sells a religion.
All the other 'rotten fruit' of Catholicism is too vast to mention here.
So, the bottom line is, we have a True Shepard, a Savior, who alone is sufficient to save! We need no one world religion, no church building, no Vatican, no Vatican telescope to see who is our Savior, Yahshua! We who are in Him are 'the church'!
"Crap" may not have been the most respectful term regarding Susanna's comments.
But seriously, she explains how the doctrine of infallibility is not affected by a pope who may have personal heretical beliefs.
How RIDICULOUS is that? As one who was raised as a catholic most of their life, I know just how ridiculous it is.
It is mind blowing to hear Catholics constantly proclaim their institution as founded by Christ himself and how it is preserved until this day with His Words "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".
A person is entitled to their belief in interpretation just as I am my own.
But, I thought it was fairly obvious that the meaning of "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" was a reference to Christ's "bride" the "church of believers" and NOT a specific reference to the institution of the RCC.
Who am I to dare to voice such disagreement with the wonderful Susanna?
Just a former catholic of 30+ years. I must have been a really bad catholic to have changed my mind.
Sooner or later we must not worry about how "nice" one sounds when searching for the truth.
Anon 5:27am:
While I can understand your passion about the subject, I don’t agree with your tone at times in critiquing Susanna’s viewpoint. As I stated, she’s merely presenting the RCC view, a perspective she adheres to. From her viewpoint, the Protestant sola Scriptura perspective is incoherent because, as she’s pointed out here before, the idea, as she understands it, is self-refuting. That is, if one understands sola Scriptura to mean simply ‘the Scripture alone dictates my rule of faith’ to include interpretation of Scripture, the problems are that 1) interpreting Scripture requires an interpreter; and, 2) the Bible doesn’t actually state that Scripture is “sufficient” in 2 Tim 3:16, but rather “profitable.”
I’ll address these issues in a bit.
As to the infallibility of the Pope, the RCC position is that the Pope is infallible only when speaking ex cathedra. While you and I disagree with this ideology, as I’d spelled out in my post above @ 10:23am with the ‘sin of omission’ argument, as well as my positing that, depending on the extant evidence of these fragments of Honorius, he may well have spoken fallibly if his position was akin to Augustus H. Strong’s stance (but, as Susanna quoted @ 9:31am, “because they [Honorius’ words] do not define any doctrine and impose it upon the whole Church” this was not an example of speaking ex cathedra), Susanna merely explained the RCC stance on this subject by stating:
Whether you agree with the Catholic position or not, the article explains the Catholic position on the issue with greater clarity.
I think that’s fair. You and I can (and do) disagree with the RCC position on this, but we can ‘agree to disagree’ without being ‘ugly’ about it.
Having stated all the above, I do find it quite odd that a Pope can be declared a heretic and yet still hold an office in which the sole purpose of said office is to be a valid spokesman for Christ. On that, you and I agree.
To Anonymice @ 4:18 AM & 5:27 AM (although you're probably the same person):
Well, first of all, I seriously doubt that God 'the Holy Spirit' (the third person in the Blessed Trinity) would 'teach' ANYONE to write such 'vile' drivel against the Church that Jesus Christ (God and second person of the Blessed Trinity) founded in 33 AD. So, right there.... your credibility is shot to pieces!!!
Yes, indeed.... 'by their fruits ye shall know them'.... right back atcha. I would say that any 'thorns or figs of thistles' are coming straight from YOU!!!
You seem to have a lot of ENVY and ANGER (two of the 7 deadly sins by the way) plus a deep unnatural resentment toward Susanna.... when you refer to her as 'Wonder Woman' and refer to her comments as 'crap.' Seriously??? That's the best you've got???
First of all, as Susanna's friend of many years, I can testify that she is not only one of the nicest and most genuine persons I know.... but also a very HUMBLE and devout Catholic Christian lady, who also happens to be a skilled and brilliant researcher. Susanna has earned the respect of Constance Cumbey and everyone else who MATTERS on this blog.
So, please (at least for your own sake).... work on your feelings of JEALOUSY.
And no.... the attacks against Catholics on this blog are no 'exaggeration' except by those few who are in deep denial about acknowledging their role in posting these attacks over the years. And you calling the Catholic Church 'a cult' is not only a complete LIE; it's absolute SLANDER. Shame on you!!!
Speaking of 'exaggerations' and 'rotten fruit' (your words)... you seem to be doing a whole lot of that when you completely misrepresent (with your very poor 'selective' memory) of what YOU THINK that Catholics practice and believe (according to all of the Catholic-bashing myths and outright lies, too numerous to mention, that you recite here ad nauseam). You need a new script, as you are only embarrassing yourself with your old one!!! We Catholics are not going to rise to the 'bait' of the old script.
"The gates of hell shall not prevail against it' means just that. Jesus never tried to make HIS WORDS complicated.... only others like you attempt to complicate the words of Jesus. Therefore, I guess the meaning is not quite so 'obvious' to you!!!
Regarding your statements: "Just a former catholic of 30+ years. I must have been a really bad catholic to have changed my mind. Sooner or later we must not worry about how "nice" one sounds when searching for the truth."....
You seem to be doing a good job of beating yourself up, calling yourself 'bad' (guilt perhaps?).... as certainly no one else on this blog is calling you that. And, don't worry, dear ~ no one would ever accuse you of being 'nice'.... or speaking 'the truth.'
Actually, it's not about being 'nice'.... but about showing RESPECT for the RIGHT of each and everyone of us to our own beliefs.... which you have NONE.
Obviously, you have a very poor and 'selective' memory of being a former Catholic. Maybe it's time to go back and study Catholicism 101.
If we Catholics came on this blog and made a habit of dissecting (slicing and dicing) all of the Protestants' beliefs... there would be absolute OUTRAGE and pandemonium.
Just a reminder ~ we Catholics are not on 'trial' here (as much as you and a few others like you spend endless hours judging us, instead of on your knees praying like the 'Christians' you claim to be). Only Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ can do that. So, 'cafeteria Christian' ~ go back and 'select' and study THAT portion of your Bible that you don't seem to care much for.... you know, the part about "Judge not lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7:1).
I'm on the air in a couple of minutes, join us in chatroom at tmeradio.com OR call in at 208-935-0094.
Constance
Anon. 5:27,
Like Craig said, I understand your passion. I don't agree with quite a few things in RC. But I don't turn those disagreements into a crusade against the people who try to defend those things.
When you say "A person is entitled to their belief in interpretation just as I am my own" and "Sooner or later we must not worry about how "nice" one sounds when searching for the truth", that sounds true enough, but let's think on that for minute. Isn't that EXACTLY why there are so many cults, heresies, incorrect beliefs, and false paths (especially in the "Evangelical/Protestant" world), any one of which is just as harmful to a person in a salvific sense as any false teachings the Pope might be espousing?
YOU say you have the Holy Spirit guiding you, but anyone can say that, yes? So how do we know what you say is really true? By your fruits. If your fruits show an ungracious and unforgiving spirit, well, on the authority of scripture I can say to you that however you treat others, you will also be treated by the Father on the day you stand before Him. (Matt. 18:21-35, esp. the last verse.)
Pretty serious stuff, eh?
Also, James 2:13 - "For judgement will be merciless to one who has shown no mercy; mercy triumphs over judgement."
I'm pretty sure this means that when we stand at the judgement seat of Christ, if we have been merciless to others while here on earth, He will be merciless in His judgement of us as well.
I have to constantly remind myself of these things. I am very much a work in progress in that regard!
http://watch.pair.com/ocm.html
While I don't buy everything Barbara Aho says I don't buy everything ANYONE says. But this is important. This
prophecy she reprints shows that the spirit back of Hebrew Roots approves of
the pentecostal, charismatic and faith healing movements, and says these and the fourth engine of this "plane" are all part of the same plan which is likened to a plane needing
these four engines working to take off.
Notice that the plane when all four engines are running will go onto the runway and then will be turned 90 degrees to take off.
what? turn 90 degrees from the runway and you crash into the cement and dirt next to it.
Most crashes do occur on takeoff or landing said one article on air crashes. sounds like the evil spirit
let something slip in this prophecy.
1:24 P.M.
When I have spoken about the RCC, I have spoken from what I have learned from 35 years of knowing the Savior, from reading scripture, from wisdom picked up from almost 60 years of life.
I have perhaps been too firm at times? However,,,, the aggressiveness, name calling, ridicule, mocking etc. from the defenders of Catholicism, makes those like myself, and others here, seem in comparison like Mr. Rodgers! Why not address them? They are multiple times harsher.
Are all Christians, at all times supposed to be wimps? Is that what you would like? Did our Lord not say things that were much tougher than any thing spoken here, by Catholic and Protestant alike?
I have made the personal choice of being outspoken on the RCC. I would rather take a chance on offending a Catholic than to see them continue on the wide path! You can judge me for this if it makes you feel good about yourself. Fine. But I worry much less about what the Lord may say to me about that, than your Mr. Rogers approach! Perhaps you should be more concerned with your own eventual face to face with the Lord, and not worry about mine.
Further more, the vast majority of posting content here on matters of Catholic belief has not been vicious personal attack, unlike the vicious cutting attack toward Protestants from the Catholic camp. Address that issue, if your such a wise judge here!!!
Usually there is more respect of persons here, than there is respect for truth. The world is full of compromise. The spirit of ecumenism is subtle, yet vicious. The time of Great Tribulation is at the door. Time to get serious about your own salvation,,,,do not waste your time worrying about mine!
Further more, I DO NOT hate catholics!!!!!!!!
I LOVE catholics. My family is nearly all catholic! I love catholics enough to care about their future! I pray for them regularly. I do care! Grow up, be MEN, not Mr. Rodgers! Stop unjustly gudging your brethren!!!
Meant to spell judging not gudging! Sorry
8:25 A.M.
JEALOUSY? Really?
Your post at 8:25 A.M. is too nonsensical to further comment on lest I be harsh.
Anonymous @ 4:48 PM
Re: "the aggressiveness, name calling, ridicule, mocking etc. from the defenders of Catholicism.......they are multiple times harsher."
Excuse me??? Are you serious???
We Catholics have never referred to any of your Protestant sects as 'CULTS' (even though we've been attacked like a broken record over and over again).... nor, have we ever labeled your beliefs 'CRAP'.... or called you 'RAVENING WOLVES.'
Christine even accused me of wanting to make 'Rome Supreme' (I told her that I don't even know what that means, but it sounds like a pizza with everything).
So, just how do you come to the conclusion that we are 'harsher' than YOU???
Now, I do often use humor and sarcasm to diffuse a very tense back and forth conversation.
No one is asking you Protestants to be 'wimps'.... but, don't expect us Catholics to roll over and take your abuse either. Sometimes, we may feel that it's necessary to get 'aggressive' to keep that from happening.
_________________________________
Re: "Furthermore, the vast majority of posting content here on matters of Catholic belief has not been vicious personal attack, unlike the vicious cutting attack toward Protestants from the Catholic camp. Address that issue, if your such a wise judge here!!!"
Well, I guess maybe Susanna and I (and other 'sensitive' Catholics) just have an overly 'vivid imagination' then, huh? How about going back and re-reading some of those posts (over the years) from some of you kind and gentle Catholic-bashers. Maybe you will have 'a light bulb moment' and get a clue.
Anonymous @ 4:55 PM
Re: "Time to get serious about your own salvation....do not waste your time worrying about mine!"
Uhhh, we're NOT worried about yours. We suggest that you stop worrying about OURS!!!
If you're going to keep returning back to the Protestant Evangelical mentality that all Catholics are going to Hell if they don't leave the Catholic Church.... please listen to me very carefully.... THAT IS YOUR BELIEF, NOT OURS!!! We are completely at peace with God... AND with our Catholic faith. We can only wish the same peace for you. However, if you really are 'at peace'.... you will leave us alone.
Anonymous @ 5:01 PM
Re: "I DO NOT hate Catholics!!!!!!!!"
Uhhh, we never said that you did. HATE is a very strong word; stop putting words in our mouths (that we never said).
Thank you.
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/25/gov-mike-pence-sign-religious-freedom-bill-thursday/70448858/
Catherine
anon 6:45
the idea that being at peace with one's religion means you won't try to proselytise is an atheist argument.
Catholics are supposed to make converts too, they always did missions. the prot who is worried
about your salvation is probably wrong, half the time, but this worry is based on concern for your
wellbeing though in some cases it is mere competition.
prots have a bad tendency to not doubt their own salvation.
RC not on this page but throughout the middle ages have condemned prots as cultists and even killed them. Of
course the most extreme prots, Calvin and Knox, did the same in return, Calvin was especially
viciously inclined. had a man killed for making a cartoon of him. Severetus who he had burned at the
stake was preaching anti trinitarian heresy that arguably might endanger souls, but this mode of dealing with
him just made a martyr out of him. While it might seem reasonable to
eliminate a mortal danger to souls, pragmatically it is usually a bad
call. Even now, him and Bruno are held up by modern gnostics and so
forth as martyrs and models.
you on the other hand being happy in your faith is not a guarantee that it is truth. The same attitude is held by all manner of false religion
adherents incl. satanists.
I am not saying you RC are in more danger of hellfire than the prots, though many of both are for different reasons (some for the same reasons). I am saying that
YOUR RATIONALE IS NOT BASED ON CHRISTIAN TEACHING, ROMAN CATHOLIC OR OTHERWISE.
And if you are a traditional Catholic, then don't tell me you think prots can be saved or even us
Orthodox because I am acquainted with trad cath writing and it says the contrary. We are all heretics and
cultists and schismatics and outside the one true church which is defined as those in communion with the pope
of Rome (who is therefore Rome supreme) and those outside of the one true church are outside the Ark of
Salvation so ipso facto not saved.
I am not a Catholic, but I will never dare judge any Catholic according to their salvation and status with God. I know many Catholics whose faith is in Jesus Christ for their salvation including Susanna. New Age has infiltrated some Catholics but also has many Protestants. I wish I could find it but years ago I read a writing from Pope John Paul 2 which seriously warned all Catholics to be on guard of New Age teachings which were infiltrating all aspects of society. If I can find it I will post it here. We also should remember that the RC Church preserved the early manuscripts of God's Word over the centuries.
Anonymous @ 5:23 PM
Re: "JEALOUSY? Really?"
Just to clarify, when you referred to Susanna in a very negative tone as 'Wonder Woman' earlier today (in your 4:18 AM post), it does suggest that you might be jealous of her. But, hey.... only you know what is in your heart toward others on this blog. So, please take that up with yourself.
To John Rupp @ 7:04 PM
Re: "I am not a Catholic, but I will never dare judge any Catholic according to their salvation and status with God."
Thank you so much, John for your very refreshing input. You just made my day.
We Catholics are fighting the New Age, too.... that's why many of us haven't abandoned this blog.
By all means, please share your warning from Pope John Paul II with all of us. We would love to read it.
God bless you.
Welcome back, Christine.
I see you've taken a long break from 'bloviating' against Catholics today. Aren't you feeling well?
Catholics and Protestants are different
denominations of the SAME RELIGION,
like it or not. In this world, the Reformation
could not have not happened.
I don't think that there will be any need for denominations in heaven, but there
is a need for them now, or God wouldn't
have it this way.
God made all the cultures on earth and he made them vastly different from each other in many ways, and He loves them all. His Kingdom on earth is a vast kingdom in every corner of the globe.
In heaven (I don't think) there'll be any more
icons, or rosaries, confessionals, statues,
paintings, stories in stained glass, cathedrals, priests OR pastors, or any of the other elements
of religion, because the things that they venerate,
honor and memorialize will be present and real.
The Lord will be there, as well as the Patriarchs
and the Apostles. Mary will be there, and Mary Magdalene too.
There won't even be a sun any more, as the light
of the Lamb of God will illuminate the whole place.
"honor and memorialize will be present and real."
Yes, for that time that is coming!.....
..But already true in my life, by simple faith in Jesus my Savior and Lord. He heard my repenting cry for Mercy and now indwells me by His Holy Spirit Who is ruling from within, seated in the throneroom of my heart. All the extras others think they need, that is fine.....
I need no other argument,
I need no other plea,
it is enough that Jesus died,
and that He died for me.
So precious and simple it is the most humbling thing of all. Christ Jesus within the believer presently....now!
Christ in me, the Hope of Glory.
How can anyone or anything begin to compare? And why let anyone or anything else compete for my affections? All to Jesus.
All.
Question:
Has anyone else here read "Temple", by
Robert Cornuke?
I'm so fired up by this book! It's a real game changer.
The temple of Soloman, and later the temple of Herod, was just to the south of the Al Aksa mosque compound.
The Dome of the Rock is not and never will be in the way of the next temple which we all know, the AC will go into and declare himself to be God. I didn't believe it at all going into the book but I sure do believe it now. In fact I can't imagine it any other way.
There is a whole series of excavations going on even now in the City of David, which by the way no one refutes is south of the Muslim compound. A man named Eli Shukron is the Director of Excavations At the City of David, and he agrees with the author completely. He knew about it before Mr Cornuke did.
It's called the Threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite, City of David and Zion in the Bible,
and the Gihon Spring gushes water there to this day.
The Gihon spring doesn't go up to the Al Aksa compound.
The Wailing Wall is the western wall of the Fort Antonia which is where Jesus was tried and sentenced, and where Paul was dragged up the stairs to be interrogated. It was the home of the 10 Roman Legion, and named after Marc Anthony by Titus.
Herod had a palace there and could see down into the temple area.
Jesus wasn't kidding when he said that not one stone of that temple will be left unturned.
Dr. Robert Cornuke is building on the work of a Dr Ernest L. Martin. They cite numerous Bible verses and many quotes from Josephus, from "The Jewish War", who saw it before and after.
They also quote Eliazer who was later at Masada. They quote Eusebius, Tactius, Raymund of Aquilas and the Bordeaux Pilgrim.
The Romans thoroughly razed not only the temple but tore out
foundation stones as well, and time and tide have only eroded it further. The temple of Soloman had been a HIGH tower
all the way down to the Kidron Valley. Those people all wrote about it, and it was awesome..
What hasn't changed though is that God declared that piece of real estate to be His holy Mountain.
Micah 3:12: Therefore shall Zion be plowed as a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps and the mountain of the house as the high places of the forest. But then Chapter 3 begins to describe what happens in the last days...Hallelujah.
That's where the New Jerusalem will touch down on earth.
That's where Ezekiels Holy District will be centered, with the pure water gushing straight up into the temple itself like it did before.
Get the book. Read it.
how ironic, that Jews pray at the wailing wall which is actually a Jesus Christ relevant historical relic!
Paul check this out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaxGnuUIeDQ
Paul, Jesus talks about the holy place in Matthew 24:15.
He does not say temple-he says holy place.
This is the most hotly contested piece of ground in all of the world. We can understand why because prized by the Jew, the Christian, and the Muslim. I think it is the going to become (very soon actually) a "political football" of the highest order, to have someone broker the peace between the "big 3" to divide it up that each may get a share of the prize and bring the "peace and safety" (security) supposedly ending all war since it is religion that is what most wars are fought over. And you notice in that passage and Luke 21 and mark 13 that there are to be armies surrounding Jerusalem and then this certain someone shows up. So who might it be that will make such a powerful move up there in this spot? Maybe someone with a "short time" (42 months)?.............We'll see if I am on to something or not but it will be a big play on the world stage is what I am thinking.
Could this be the trial run for that what may be the "be all end all" on temple mount?
http://house-of-one.org/en
Not too far fetched in this ecumunical climate is it?
anon 10:33
you gonna argue over terminology? THE TEMPLE IS THE HOLY PLACE! there is no other "holy place." except you could
argue that THE holy place would be the holy of holies in the Temple.
Not going to argue. Perhaps you want to.
Take it or leave what I said. It is my opinion that may or may not change.
I don't care if want to start splitting hairs or not. Time will tell us anyway.
But how about trying some patience before you start the next round of arguments?
anon 10:42
dry run maybe. real thing, not for a while. And whenever the temple is rebuilt there is no timeline from that
point to when the antichrist will claim to be god. Not a timeline not open to interpretation.
This whole thing could play out in anywhere from 48 to nearly 500 years.
http://seventhchapterofdaniel.blogspot.com start with the oldest post.
We shall see.
Much much much sooner in my book.
Think what you will.
But be sure and get your heart right nonetheless. The Lord is at hand.
The Lord Jesus Christ is at hand for all of us regardless of when He is coming back.
We all die sooner or later and face Him.
"imminence" in pre trib theory has a big problem, He is imminently returning in the generation that sees ALL the
events He talked about happening at once, not some here and some other there later but all at once. And that
isn't now.
and there is no economic system you can count on as typical of the antichrist. It could be communist, fascist or
libertarian laissez faire capitalist, with one proviso, you can only participate legally if you worship the
antichrist and receive his mark.
I am not pretrib.
You should not assume.
The first 3 letters of that word tell us what it makes of one.
Thanks 10:23 and 10:33,
People say it's crazy to even suggest that the current Al Aksa mosque compound is not the site of the original temple of Soloman, which David purchased from Araun the Jebusite (even though he had just conquered the citadel of Zion, he purchased it because God told him to ), but it's not hard to understand when you realize that it was a deserted wasteland after the Romans tore it down. Even the stones were hauled away to be used in pagan temples and buildings. It was forgotten for hundreds of years after 70AD. The Muslims built
their mosque /dome complex directly on top of the old Roman fort in 680AD, and co-opted the entire footprint of that as well as the western walls of the fort.
In Herods time, he built two footbridges between the fort and the Jewish temple, which was even then a little lower in elevation than the fort
and the Romans and Herod could see down into the temple, which the Jews didn't like at all. But the Romans wanted control of the often unruly Jews.
But in Davids time the only temple was still a tent.
He put the Tabernacle there and he put the Ark of the covenant there in the Holy of Holies, which had been the threshing floor of Auran, and the same exact spot where Jacob fell asleep one night and set his head down on a rock and then spent the rest of the night wrestling with an angel of the Lord. It was the same spot that he had seen angels ascending and descending on a ladder.
It is the mountain of God and though it doesn't appear right now, it reaches up into heaven.
In Jesus time, Herods temple was a smaller version of the original which was destroyed by the Babylonians. And Herods temple never had the shekinah glory of God shining in it. It was an fact a temple to the glory of Herod, more than God, who was a despot and an egomaniac.
Someday soon it will be even more glorious than in Solomans time.
It will be the New Jerusalem come down from heaven.
We shall see about that one too.
I stay open and talk in probabilities/possibilities that still hold on to maybe maybe not. But when things take shape according to God's timeline (he does have one) the speculation will end and turn in actual to knowledge right? Time will tell. Be patient and watchful like the Lord said to do.
My 11:32 PM is answer to Christine @ 11:07 and 11:20 PM.
Susanna,
I should start by stating that I’m non-denominational. In the following I’ll describe sola Scriptura as per my understanding of it, quoting a few sources, and stating where I think the given source diverges from the doctrine. I’ll compare this doctrine with “solo” Scriptura, the aberrant offshoot which is, unfortunately, very prevalent today. I’ll leave out prima Scriptura altogether in order to limit this discussion (and because I was not familiar with the term until you brought it up!).
There are many who see the debate simplistically as between “Scripture only” (sola Scriptura) vs. “Scripture + Tradition” (RCC). Yet, the doctrine of sola Scriptura includes a tradition – just not the same one as the RCC. This will illustrate that my historical perspective is somewhat at variance with the RCC stance. I don’t bring this up to polemicize, but as explanation. It’s not my intention to get into a debate on the various points so much as to explain my perspective.
First, I’ll quote a bit from wiki, which, in my mind, illustrates some of the confusion found on the subject. From Rule of Faith, we find:
In conservative Protestantism Romans 12:6 is viewed as the biblical reference for the term "analogy of the faith" (i.e., αναλογἰα τῆς πἰστεως). The Bible alone is considered the word of God and the only infallible standard for judging faith and practice; hence, for conservative Protestantism, the analogy of the faith is equivalent to the analogy of scripture – that is, opinions are tested for their consistency with scripture, and scripture is interpreted by the Holy Spirit speaking in scripture (compare sola scriptura).
I’m not sure what is considered “conservative Protestantism” and how it is (or isn’t?) opposed to sola Scripture, which the above parenthetically references to compare with. There is no mention of the early Creeds; so, one may come away thinking these are rejected. As to the wiki link on sola Scriptura, specifically, the portion you quoted yesterday, I may have misread it. That is, it may accurately state the doctrine; however, it seems to imply that the Creeds of the 3rd and 4th century are subject to dismissal, when, in reality, most of Protestantism accepts these Creedal statements.
Since I have an article in the works in which I go over this subject (the article is on Christology, and this provides some background), I’ll just copy and paste it here with some modification, deleting footnote references except when material is quoted directly or the author named.
__________________________________
It may be prudent to provide a bit of background information for this section, as it appears there are Protestants today who do not understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura – Scripture alone. Sola Scriptura does not mean it’s ‘every man and his Bible’ and, consequently, any sort of “tradition” is automatically rejected. On the contrary, sola Scriptura recognizes that the reading of Scripture necessarily entails interpretation, acknowledging early Church writings, known as the Patristic era, as formative – accepted only to the extent that these writings truly adhere to Scripture, with the benefit of hindsight.
[cont]
[cont]
The early church Councils, including Nicea I (325), Constantinople I (381), Ephesus I (431), and Chalcedon (451), are considered an important part of the Church’s heritage, and deemed instructive by much, if not most, of Protestantism. Adding Constantinople II (553), Constantinople III (660/661), and Nicea II (787) to these four important Councils of the 4th and 5th centuries, they are known collectively as the seven ecumenical Councils. Of these, Philip Schaff comments:
They rise up like lofty peaks or majestic pyramids from the plan of ancient church history, and mark the ultimate authoritative settlement of the general questions of doctrine and discipline which agitated Christendom in the Graeco-Roman empire.[ Philip Schaff History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-590 (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2011 (1867)) p 331]
However, Schaff is quick to distinguish the first four from the latter three: “The first four of these councils command high theological regard in the orthodox Evangelical churches, while the last three are less important and far more rarely mentioned.”[ibid, p 334] Consequently, these latter three Councils are recognized in varying degrees among Protestants (considered authoritative by Roman Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox).
The resultant Creeds of the first, second, and fourth Councils – known as the Nicene Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, and the Chalcedonian “Definition” respectively – can be viewed as Biblical commentary of difficult concepts broken down into more comprehendible ways; or, as D. H. Williams states, these were and are “understood as proper extensions of biblical teaching”.[ D. H. Williams Evangelicals and Tradition: The Formative Influences of the Early Church (Bletchley, Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2005 (2nd ed)) pp 107-108] Protestantism generally accepts, at minimum, the Christological and Trinitarian teachings of these Councils and Creeds, while their associated canons are largely ignored or rejected.
Taken together, these form a Protestant ‘tradition’ of sorts (differing among the various denominations); however, it’s important to note that all ecumenical Councils and Creeds are ultimately subordinate to Scripture. Oliver Crisp asserts a hierarchy of importance with Scripture taking preeminence, followed in order by ecumenical Creeds, conciliar statements, and doctrines espoused by theologians including those recognized as ‘Doctors of the Church’.[God Incarnate: Explorations in Christology (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2009) p 17. Scholarly commentaries would fall into this last category.]
[cont]
AND, this is key;
David put the Tabernacle there and put the Ark in it in the holy of holies. He made sacrifices there.
Later after the Babylonians tore it down, seventy years later they were sacrificing on an altar there before any
part of the temple was rebuilt yet.
So, Christine I don't know where you pulled up the 48 years number but they could be sacrificing next week there if they build and altar and cordon off a holy of holies, inside a holy place, inside a sanctuary, inside a temple complex.
"We enter in through his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise."
[cont]
In his work Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine, Gregg R. Allison notes a number of benefits to obtaining a working knowledge of our Christian heritage including that it may assist in: “distinguish[ing] orthodoxy from heresy”; providing “sound biblical instructions and theological interpretations”; presenting “stellar examples of faith, love, courage, hope, obedience, and mercy”; encouraging a “focus on the essentials”, and; guarding against the Christian “individualism that is rampant today”[ Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MA, Zondervan, 2011) pp 24-29.] (aka “solo” Scriptura). Allison is concerned over the tendency towards a “penchant for the novel” among evangelicals[ibid, p 26], quoting Alister McGrath at length in this matter:
Tradition is like a filter, which allows us to identify suspect teachings immediately. To protect that “We have never believed this before!” is not necessarily to deny the correctness of the teaching in question. But it is to raise a fundamental question: why have Christians not believed this before? And, on further investigation, it usually turns out that there are often very good reasons for not accepting that belief. The past here acts as both a resource and a safeguard, checking unhelpful and unorthodox doctrinal developments by demanding that their supporters explain their historical and theological credentials. [“The Importance of Tradition for Modern Evangelicalism”, in Donald Lewis and Alister E. McGrath, ed.Doing Theology for the People of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996) p 167 as cited in Allison Historical Theology, p 27.]
As noted above, both Scripture interpretation and theological doctrines are to be understood as cumulative; we have the benefit of learning from our past, for the Church is made up of one body consisting of true Christians past, present and yet future. We have the benefit of others’ knowledge and work as provided by the illumination of the Holy Spirit (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13-14), and it would behoove us to learn from the errors while adhering to the truths of those who’ve preceded us.
___________________________________________
In the following I’ll quote from the article I mentioned earlier, Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes:
Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition." Protestants are said to teach "Scripture alone," while Roman Catholics are said to teach "Scripture plus tradition." This, however, is not an accurate picture of the historical reality. The debate should actually be understood in terms of competing concepts of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, and there are more than two such concepts in the history of the church. In order to understand the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura we must understand the historical context more accurately.
[cont]
[cont]
The Reformation debate over sola Scriptura did not occur in a vacuum. It was the continuation of a long-standing medieval debate over the relationship between Scripture and tradition and over the meaning of "tradition" itself. In the first three to four centuries of the church, the church fathers had taught a fairly consistent view of authority. The sole source of divine revelation and the authoritative doctrinal norm was understood to be the Old Testament together with the Apostolic doctrine, which itself had been put into writing in the New Testament. The Scripture was to be interpreted in and by the church within the context of the regula fidei ("rule of faith"), yet neither the church nor the regula fidei were considered second supplementary sources of revelation. The church was the interpreter of the divine revelation in Scripture, and the regula fidei was the hermeneutical context, but only Scripture was the Word of God. Heiko Oberman (1930-2001) has termed this one-source concept of revelation "Tradition 1."
The first hints of a two-source concept of tradition, a concept in which tradition is understood to be a second source of revelation that supplements biblical revelation, appeared in the fourth century in the writings of Basil and Augustine. Oberman terms this two-source concept of tradition "Tradition 2"...It is not absolutely certain that either Basil or Augustine actually taught the two-source view, but the fact that it is hinted at in their writings ensured that it would eventually find a foothold in the Middle Ages. This would take time, however, for throughout most of the Middle Ages, the dominant view was Tradition 1, the position of the early church. The beginnings of a strong movement toward Tradition 2 did not begin in earnest until the twelfth century. A turning point was reached in the fourteenth century in the writings of William of Ockham. He was one of the first, if not the first, medieval theologian to embrace explicitly the two-source view of revelation. From the fourteenth century onward, then, we witness the parallel development of two opposing views: Tradition 1 and Tradition 2. It is within the context of this ongoing medieval debate that the Reformation occurred.
When the medieval context is kept in view, the Reformation debate over sola Scriptura becomes much clearer. The reformers did not invent a new doctrine out of whole cloth. They were continuing a debate that had been going on for centuries. They were reasserting Tradition 1 within their particular historical context to combat the results of Tradition 2 within the Roman Catholic Church. The magisterial reformers argued that Scripture was the sole source of revelation, that it is to be interpreted in and by the church, and that it is to be interpreted within the context of the regula fidei. They insisted on returning to the ancient doctrine, and as Tradition 1 became more and more identified with their Protestant cause, Rome reacted by moving toward Tradition 2 and eventually adopting it officially at the Council of Trent.
Not a good idea to pull an answer out of an ASSume is it?
So, to be succinct, sola Scriptura has an associated tradition, while “solo” Scriptura rejects everything outside Scripture – a sort of ‘Christian anarchy.’ The latter is self-refuting; the former follows the consensus of the ekklesia, the Church, understood as the collective of Holy Spirit-indwelt Christians.
Christine at 9:39
Ironic yes. They would appear to be worshiping
a Roman military fort. A god of forces?
I was thinking too how God himself saw to it that
rather than be trampled by pagans for the last 1200 years or so, he decided to direct all the tourist and Muslim traffic to an "outer court".
Rev 11 begins: "And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar and them that worship therein.
But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not for it is given unto the Gentiles, and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months."
"Christine I don't know where you pulled up the 48 years number "
I said this whole thing could play out etc., referring to everything up to
The Second Coming. not just the rebuilding of the Temple.
while the antichrist makes sacrifice cease after making a treaty, there is
no indication how long
the new temple had existed before that point.
Also, exactly all this happened with antiochus epiphanes the forerunner of
the antichrist and early church fathers knew all this, since they
knew the books of maccabbees and in the case of the Roman destruction of
the Temple in AD 70 right on time.
preterists claim this proves all this is over, but multiple fulfillment of
prophecy and that some parts were fulfilled and others not yet is
ignored by such.
I agree Paul.
How abominable will it be to God if the man of sin goes and stands in that spot though, that is bare mount moriah (holy of holies)? I think that will become the "throwdown" and begin the showdown of 3 1/2 years. I don't think that is an if but a when.
Also when measured by the bible dimensions that spot in the video of the dome of the spirits, the math works out, and it faces the eastern gate. Something is going to happen up there. Measured up to be carved up like Rev 11 says?
Don't know but makes me think of things like this.
Paul
I am curious of your opinion on Joel Richardson?
I have recently become fascinated with his viewpoints on a middle eastern anti Christ. I ask you because you have mentioned this same view a few times and while I didn't give the theory much credit at the time, I am becoming more intrigued at the idea.
I was always unsure as to how this would work since I had the notion that the AC would possibly have some Jewish lineage. I do not have anything solid to base this, maybe just years of opinions from several prophecy camps.
I was indifferent towards Mr. Richardson in the past. He seems like a sharp individual with some credible research.
I also figured you might have some insight into his work as I believe I read somewhere that he has had a few collaborations with Shoebat (sorry, not quite on board with Mr. Shoebat yet. I'm sure he means well, just not quite there yet).
Thanks in advance and I look forward to your input.
Paul:
I truly enjoyed reading all of your recent posts.
You are not only sharing a lot of wisdom with everyone, but you have become a very respected 'elder statesman' of this blog.
Great job!!!
Craig,
I am in haste, but I just want to briefly post the following.
Re:Part of the difficulty in understanding the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura is due to the fact that the historical debate is often framed simplistically in terms of "Scripture versus tradition."
Martin Luther may have been partially to blame for the aforementioned simplistic framework of the historical sola Scriptura debate. In its extreme form the Anglican latitudinarian scholar William Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants."
I am willing to stand corrected if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding (as stated in one the Wiki articles) that it was - and perhaps still is - the Lutherans who embrace "sola Scriptura" which originated with Martin Luther who later lamented it and its consequences in his own writings.
Professor De Wette, who was a Professor of Protestant Divinity at Basle, in Switzerland, and a staunch supporter of Luther quoted Luther's manuscripts in which Luther admits to the Reformation all but "replacing Bishops with Princes" and the general religious and theological anarchy which speedily became a consequence of the Reformation.
On a note of levity, if I were Martin Luther and wanted to ditch the Pope, I would be mightily disappointed if the results of all my efforts was merely "a change of masters" - i.e. from the Pope in Rome to the German princes for whom it appears I had unwittingly wound up doing their power-mongering dirty work.
Moreover, as Luther writes in his manuscripts describing the religious anarchy,
"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61.
cont...
cont...
Now again, these are Luther's own words quoted by a Protestant professor who supported him. They are not the rantings of Catholic polemicists anxious to "send Luther to Hell." For that matter, Catholics had plenty to worry about as it was with the Ottoman Empire threatening them in their own back yard.
In his sermon on the Gospel of St. John, Luther stated:
"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304
In any case, if what you understand as "sola Scriptura" at least acknowledges the value of that part of our Christian heritage known as Patristics, then we are starting to move towards the same page.
In my own personal experience, the Protestants who have tried hardest to persuade me to their way of thinking presented "sola Scriptura" as an "every man and his Bible" proposition and whatever a Protestant might think of Catholic ecclesiology including the papacy, the "every man and his Bible" proposition ( i.e."solo Scriptura") is neither reasonable, historical nor Biblical!
Let us not forget that when it came to the Reformation, Martin Luther was not the whole show. The English branch of the Reformation which was first launched under Henry VIII over the "supremacy issue" at first retained many of the traditional Catholic Christian beliefs. Henry VIII may have usurped the authority of the Pope, but he seems to have done little at the time to change much else.
As for the Creeds - especially the Creed of Chalcedon - I think that you and I would agree that they cannot and do not contradict Scriptures.
"No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
sounds like the prophecy crew on TV and Internet.
There's no creed of chalcedon it is a dogmatic definition the Creed itself was not added to merely explained.
I have now and then run into information indicating that some of the protestant notions against
sacraments and so forth, strangely parallel those of the bogomils and other similar heretics, who
eventually wandered or were driven to the balkans and from there to europe
proper.
While I don't like the papacy and some doctrinal development, the bogomil attitude is worse. Protestants
have been evaluated by some as closet gnostics, seems like they only accept
the Incarnation because they have to do so, but that is the only case of God operating through matter
that they will hear of. While lip service is given to matter being a good creature of God,
at some gut level the idea God might work through matter in miraculous
relics or holy water or do a transformation of bread and wine into
Christ's Body and Blood is anathema to them.
Bogomilism, catharism and the lot were of the same mindset.
Christine,
Re:There's no creed of chalcedon it is a dogmatic definition the Creed itself was not added to merely explained.
Call it whatever you want, but
this creed was adopted at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, located in what is now Turkey, in 451, as a response to certain heretical views concerning the nature of Christ. It established the orthodox view that Christ has two natures (human and divine) that are unified in one person.
CHALCEDONIAN CREED
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.iii.html
"This whole thing could play out in anywhere from 48 to nearly 500 years"
Or it will kick off when Iran tests their first underground nuke. Certainly not in 48 years' time!
Richard, that is because she is pretty much clueless about what is truly prophetic going on as we speak, and cannot see past the end of her own nose.
And since she has resident seer there in her house you would think she would have the latest info ;).
It is funny and sad and mostly stupid that she argues like she knows the topic in the first place.
anon 6:48
I am well acquainted with what is going on and what the prophecy interpretations
you are used to (and I used to buy) say it all means. Shoebat is
onto something, but it isn't quite what he thinks it is.
I refer you again to http://seventhchapterofdaniel.blogspot.com start with oldest post for a
detailed analysis.
Kindly read before you criticize.
since this unlike the statue dream (which ends with the setting up of
the Kingdom of Heaven which is the First Coming), seques into the Second Coming, as indicated by the judgement scene,
it follows the beasts must be seen in terms of what they would mean NOW.
winged lion=britain-america. bear=russia. note ribs cheer it on, they appear
to be victims to others, but they aren't. THIS IS ALREADY STARTED with
Crimea rejoining and eastern Ukraine probably will rejoin Russia. A third
rib must be acquired, then it will go on the march.
4 headed 4 winged leopard=one of two possible candidates. Kurdistan (never
mind why) or China (too complicated) both are leopard habitat. China and Russia
are already indirect players in the Middle East, and every reason to become
active players.
The fourth empire, which doesn't exist yet, and from which the antichrist will arise,
will conquer the others.
As per Shoebat, it MIGHT be islamic. But since nothing about the statue dream
is relevant, it probably won't be a revived Roman empire, though it
might come from places Rome once held. Specifically, Africa.
The others, if my attributions are correct, which some others have made, but none
called China or Kurdistan as an option, come from three of the four directions.
Therefore the fourth empire comes from Africa. Consistent with this possibility
is the looks of the beast in Revelation. Body of a leopard (infrastructure Chinese), feet of a bear (weaponry from Russia) and mouth of a lion (might be English speaking or promoting something relevant to british or american pretensions,
applied to itself).
"onto something, but it isn't quite what he thinks it is."
See what I mean? same old tired phrase. This is the same terminology you used on another thread. You only bring the tired and old done to death theories that are molding in your head.
I will not reread this stuff of yours again. You argued till the blog turned blue and still you kept at it and concluded what? Nothing. You are a one trick pony in looking at scripture to interpret it to your liking-in other words you don't properly back it up. That makes a mockery out of it but that doesn't stop you.
I promised if I found it I would post it. Here is the sight from the Vatican's main website translated in English the warning and explanation of the New Age Movement. This is written by the Pontifical Council For Culture and the Pontifical Council For Interreligious Dialogue. It is entitled "A Christian reflection on the New Age". It is very well put together with a table of contents. You will also find in it some of Pope John Paul II's warning about aspects of the New Age Movement. It is very well detailed. Here it is.
http://www.vatican.va//roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20030203_new-age_en.html
Anon 1:17
I'm not familiar with Mr Richardson but I'll be checking him out at your suggestion.
Anon12,
Thank you very much but you're too kind.
When I look at Craig's research, and Susanna's and
Marko's and many others here, I see real scholarship going on, which I could never be accused of.
I just love God's word and I believe it is alive, and sharper than any two-edged sword.
For instance, I mistakenly switched the two names
just now.
Whoops.
Susanna,
One of the points I wanted to stress in what I wrote above is that sola Scriptura is not strictly a Reformation concept – even if the term wasn’t coined until then – but that the idea that Scripture is the sole source of divine revelation (the definition of sola Scriptura), with ‘tradition’ subordinate to Scripture, goes back to the 1st century. We may well disagree on the latter point, but that’s my stance. In part with this in mind, I’ll respond to your statement here:
As for the Creeds - especially the Creed of Chalcedon - I think that you and I would agree that they cannot and do not contradict Scriptures.
If we eliminate the bolded portion, I’d agree in toto. Keeping Ephesus II in mind, it’s only in retrospect that a Council can be fully accepted as Scriptural commentary or whether it’s at variance with Scripture (again, the idea that ‘tradition’ is subordinate to Scripture). As for Chalcedon and the other Creeds I noted above, properly understood, I’ll agree, they do not contradict Scripture. [Please, Christine, let’s not bring up the filioque!]
Sarah Coakley [“What Does Chalcedon Solve and What Does it Not? Some Reflections on the Status and Meaning of the Chalcedonian ‘Definition’” in Davis, Kendall, O’Collins, eds. The Incarnation (New York: Oxford UP, 2002), pp 160-162] notes that the Greek word used to describe the resultant statement at Chalcedon was ὅρος (horos), which meant boundary, or limit. That is, Chalcedon’s goal was to set limits to theological speculations on Christology, without fully defining Jesus Christ’s ontology, as this is, of course, a divine mystery. One can get into trouble when being dogmatic about the inscrutable!
Craig,
Re: with ‘tradition’ subordinate to Scripture, goes back to the 1st century.
If Catholics do not fully accept that Sacred Tradition is "subordinate" to Sacred Scripture, it is partly because Sacred Scripture is not something different from Sacred Tradition - but because Sacred Scripture IS ITSELF part of the Sacred Tradition.
The two facets of the Catholic Rule of Faith are inseparable. The Apostles HEARD the Word of God before they wrote it down. After Scriptures were written down, someone had to decide which Books were authentically the Word of God and belonged in the Bible -especially since the gnostic heretics were peddling their own "scriptures" as the real deal and only those who actually knew Christ and/or the Apostles could tell the difference between the authentic gospels and the false or questionable ones. This too is Sacred Tradition for Catholics. The inspired authors of the books of the New Testament either had to be Apostles ( eyewitnesses of the Resurrection ) or the disciples of the Apostles who recorded what the Apostles taught.
For example, Saint Mark was said to be a disciple and interpretor of Peter. Saint Luke was said to be a disciple of Saint Paul and possibly an eyewitness of Christ's ministry.
I will concede that once the canon of the Scriptures was officially established, then the idea of "prima Scriptura" could have begun to come into play.
But let us not forget that with regard to the Old Testament, Martin Luther took it upon himself to substitute the Hebrew Bible for the Septuagint which is said to be the oldest translation of Scripture from Hebrew into Greek (300-200 B.C.) and was the Old Testament translation most often quoted in the New Testament and also by the Apostolic Fathers and later Greek Church Fathers.
The Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls establish a very dramatic piece of evidence for Christianity – that the Old Testament prophecies of the coming Messiah unquestionably predated the time that Jesus Christ walked the earth. All theories of 1st Century AD conspiracies and prophecy manipulation go out the door when we realize that prophetic scripture like Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 were fixed in written form at least 100 years before Christ, and probably many more. Again, despite time, persecution, and the incredibly minor instances of scribal mistakes, the Septuagint is just another example of how the Biblical text has remained faithful in its message and theme.
http://www.septuagint.net/Septuagint.htm
_____________________________
The reason why I have a problem with Luther's rejection of the Septuagint is not primarily because of Purgatory issue or because of the so-called "Apocrypha" which do not have to be historical any more than a parable has to be historical in order to communicate a religious truth.
While these other things do come into play along with other issues, the primary reason why I have a problem with Martin Luther's exchanging the Septuagint for the Hebrew Bible is because in the Septuagint, the Greek equivalent of "JAHVEH," "Adonai" and "Shaddai" was "KYRIOS."
("LORD")
In the New Testament, Christ is frequently referred to as "KYRIOS" - with especial frequency by St. Paul.
Now as we all know, St. Paul was a devout Pharisee before his conversion. He is said to have studied under the great Jewish Rabbi Gamaliel (Acts 22:3).
Can anyone believe that as a former well-educated Pharisee, that St. Paul did not know what he was doing when referring to Jesus as "KYRIOS?" Especially when Jesus Himself was nearly stoned to death for blasphemy when using the most Sacred Name of God (I AM) in reference to himself?
*****************
cont....
cont...
Just an aside here. In his book DOES GOD EXIST?, dissenting Catholic theologian Hans Kung used the Scriptures to place the divinity of Christ in doubt saying that Jesus is rarely referred to as "God" in the Scripture.....and "NEVER AT ALL BY ST. PAUL."
If, in his "historical critical method" of "doing theology" Hans Kung omitted any serious consideration of the Septuagint and its use of the word "KYRIOS" as the Greek equivalent of the most sacred name of God and its subsequent use in reference to Christ - especially by St. Paul, then Hans Kung's "historical critical" method was neither historical nor critical, was it?
By the way, to this very day at Mass, we Catholics recite the "Kyrie Eleison." The prayer goes exactly like this in Greek although we recite it in English.
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)
Christe Eleison(Christ have mercy)
Kyrie Eleison (Lord have mercy)
Re:That is, Chalcedon’s goal was to set limits to theological speculations on Christology, without fully defining Jesus Christ’s ontology, as this is, of course, a divine mystery. One can get into trouble when being dogmatic about the inscrutable!
No disagreement there. Ultimately, the hypostatic union -the union of human and divine natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ is a mystery.
While the Incarnation is described in some detail in the Gospels of Saints Luke and John, Saint John’s Gospel is more theologically precise.
The early Church zealously resisted any theory that contradicted the unity of the true God with the true man in the Person of Jesus Christ. Because the Scriptures themselves - especially 1 John 4 - explicitly tell us that those who "sever" Christ ( i.e. deny either Christ's human nature or His divine nature are of the "spirit of the antichrist."
Paul 8:07 P.M.
While I have been engaged in a very interesting and educational discussion with Craig, I meant to tell you that your post was beautifully expressed.
Have a Blessed Easter.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150330/us--united_states-climate_ch
Tightening that strangle hold.
Susanna,
…The Apostles HEARD the Word of God before they wrote it down. After Scriptures were written down, someone had to decide which Books were authentically the Word of God and belonged in the Bible -especially since the gnostic heretics were peddling their own "scriptures" as the real deal and only those who actually knew Christ and/or the Apostles could tell the difference between the authentic gospels and the false or questionable ones...
All Scripture is, as Paul records in 2 Tim 3:16, θεόπνευστος, theopneustos, “God-breathed.” Certainly, the Scriptures are of divine inspiration; yet, while you may know something regarding this that I do not, I just am not sure we can dogmatically state that the Apostles HEARD the Word of God before they put it to pen. I’m inclined to think the Scriptures were superintended by the Holy Spirit, but not necessary written after ‘hearing’ it. Perhaps you are being metaphorical on this? Sorry if this sounds pedantic.
I adhere to what is called plenary verbal inspiration; that is, the writers were under divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit, thus making Scripture infallible, yet they used their own individual personalities in constructing the written text. This is what makes Paul’s writings different from e.g. John.
But even still, as you stated, there was not universal agreement on just which texts constituted the New Testament Scriptures; and, it wasn’t until much later that the NT was ‘officially’ canonized, even though most of it was recognized as authoritative at least as early as the early part of the 2nd century (books like Jude and 2 Peter were in dispute). However, just because the Church didn’t know right away exactly which books made up the NT doesn’t mean that the books that were later affirmed as the NT weren’t superintended by the Holy Spirit when first written, of course. This is why I highly recommend Michael J. Kruger’s The Question of Canon, in which the author makes the point that the canon was the canon when it was originally written, regardless of the fact that the Church did not recognize all the NT texts as authoritative until much later. Therefore the canonicity of Scripture is equal to the time at which the Scripture was originally penned.
Thus, while the canon was the canon when originally written, it matters not that the Church – which is made up of fallible mankind – failed to fully recognise the entire canon until later. In the meantime, in my view, the Holy Spirit attended such writers as Irenaeus to refute the gnostic texts by appealing to the texts the Spirit led him to use. Therefore, Irenaeus’ work was influenced by the Holy Spirit, yet was not itself on par with the infallible Scriptures. Otherwise, his work would be θεόπνευστος, just like the books of the NT.
[cont]
[cont]
As for the LXX, I wholeheartedly accept it, realizing, among other things, that many NT quotes were sourced from it, some verbatim, others close paraphrases. Moreover, the very popular NIV Bible, the one I tend to prefer, recognizes both the LXX and DSS along with the MT as important texts in constructing the OT. And, regarding your point about KYRIOS (LORD), I’m well aware this word is translated for YHWH, etc., and that KYRIOS was also used for Jesus in the NT. In fact, this is central to my argument for a particular textual variant in Jude 5, in which I contend that Jesus is stated as leading the Exodus as a way to affirm Christ’s divinity and equality with the KYRIOS of the OT:
Who Led the Exodus? – A Text Critical Study in Jude 5
Sorry, I meant to hyperlink Kruger's excellent work in my previous comment:
The Question of Canon
Constance and Susanna,
A tidbit I just came across.http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report-rogue-catholic-bishops-plan-to-grow-schismatic-challenge-to-vatican-2073392
I sometimes wonder how any group think they could aim for a one world religion when people who belong to one Church can't even agree on things. We'd all be forced into it I gather. Won't be peace on earth till he himself shows up.
From OZ
Susanna and Craig,
in many places in The Bible it says God SPOKE, or "the word of YHWH came to me and said"
so clearly some inspiration was dictation of words heard. In some cases
a vision accompanied this. Revelation is a good example of both, as is
the revelation to Moses.
In some cases, such as Proverbs, it is the product of what appears to be
human wisdom, but is wisdom given and fine tuned by God.
In the case of the Gospels indeed they heard the word of God, because they
were THERE hearing Jesus speak His words to us.
Irenaeus and Ignatius and Justin Martyr were only a couple of removes
from the Apostles and embedded in the assemblies they founded, whose belief
was shaped by men they had taught and appointed, and who taught and appointed their successors.
So appeals to these church fathers are really appeals not to divine authority per se,
but (though they undoubtedly had God's help) Protestants need not view this as an appeal to "authority" like Scripture,
but rather the same way you would
look to Josephus, or to pagan historians for that matter, in order
to know what was going on. The same way you would look to someone who
wrote about events current to him or her in the Middle Ages for instance.
Irenaeus said that the NT canon though I don't think he used the word canon was what was accepted in the
churches as authoritative because handed to their first bishops by the Apostles.
There were only two or three epistles and Revelation (because of Montanist
use of it) that came under dispute, and the council that settled this did
so because it drew on information from the attending bishops who would
had incl. those who knew these had been in use from early times.
The Sheperd of Hermas is rather odd, and came into great popularity despite
reading like a piece of daydream fiction, perhaps because of the fleshliness
of the people who liked it. It even got read in church services for a while.
but eventually it was repudiated officially. I would compare it to some modern evangelical pop literature
which finds it way to the more fleshly (or worse) preaching today.
If you have conflicting possible interpretations of a verse, or meaning
of a practice, then if the verse or practice is addressed by one of these
second or even third century writers, the interpretation they put on it should be given priority in a modern dispute.
I would exclude Tertullian from this, because though he fits this category, he fell into the deception of Montanism, being an excessive rigorist, which itself is against the more nuanced approach you find in the Gospels.
For instance, Jesus Himself went and got Peter to acknowledge Him as often as he had denied him. Tertullian would have written Peter off as a lost cause.
Tertullian and others led the charge in the development of discouraging
second marriages of widows, but Paul advocated second marriages of young widows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VGo92WWeJ4 the origins of the present crisis in Yemen.
I'd recommend listening to all the Caspian Report videos. Some information
was new to me, but everything I already knew about he said was correct. This
is not a Christian perspective but it is what you need to know to understand
what is going on and it doesn't reflect any religious perspective,
it is strictly historical and pragmatic.
Its a good one stop shopping trip for facts that could take you months in a library.
http://catherinespascha.com/pascha/how-easter-got-its-name/
http://shoebat.com/2014/12/19/new-discovery-erdogan-now-reviving-religion-antichrist-will-enable-islamic-mahdi-declare-god/
I use dto think moslems would all reject the antichrist, once he demanded worship. I am not convinced Erdogan
is the antichrist, unless he gets shot in the head (or clubbed or stabbed in the head)
and put into some medically induced coma for his own good for a very
very long time and brought out of it functional.
But the point made in this article shows, that whether the antichrist will
start out as a moslem or merely appeal to them, at some point a lot
of muslims WOULD WORSHIP HIM, because of points in sufism.
There would still be a lot of moslems who would reject this, those that
count sufism as a heresy.
Craig
Re:I’m inclined to think the Scriptures were superintended by the Holy Spirit, but not necessary written after ‘hearing’ it. Perhaps you are being metaphorical on this? Sorry if this sounds pedantic.
Actually, my own opinion is that the "hearing" of the Word of God prior to committing it to writing is Biblical, literal and historical. Biblical because it was St. Paul who said in Romans 10:17 that "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." Literal and historical, because many of the Apostles didn't know how to read or write.
Catholics believe that there was a strong oral and apostolic tradition within the early church just as there is in Judaism (Mishneh Torah)
http://en.sino-israel.org/q-and-a/what-are-pentateuch-torah-mishnah-and-talmud-what-is-their-relation/
___________________________
But I don't mean to be pedantic either. One thing we can certainly agree on is that however either of us might interpret the aforementioned "hearing," the Holy Spirit did indeed guide the apostles to put the Word into a written form. This was an expected and natural development; otherwise the redemption and revelation brought by Jesus Christ could have been lost.
Re: I adhere to what is called plenary verbal inspiration; that is, the writers were under divine inspiration by the Holy Spirit, thus making Scripture infallible, yet they used their own individual personalities in constructing the written text. This is what makes Paul’s writings different from e.g. John.
This is pretty much what I have been taught as a Catholic. Revelation is "received according to the mode of the receiver."
And you are right about the canon. While not explicitly defined, there was an idea of what was canonical right from the beginning.
According to New Advent:
The witness of the New Testament to itself: The first collections
Those writings which possessed the unmistakable stamp and guarantee of Apostolic origin must from the very first have been specially prized and venerated, and their copies eagerly sought by local Churches and individual Christians of means, in preference to the narratives and Logia, or Sayings of Christ, coming from less authorized sources.
cont...
cont...
Already in the New Testament itself there is some evidence of a certain diffusion of canonical books: 2 Peter 3:15-16 supposes its readers to be acquainted with some of St. Paul's Epistles; St. John's Gospel implicitly presupposes the existence of the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke). There are no indications in the New Testament of a systematic plan for the distribution of the Apostolic compositions, any more than there is of a definite new Canon bequeathed by the Apostles to the Church, or of a strong self-witness to Divine inspiration. Nearly all the New Testament writings were evoked by particular occasions, or addressed to particular destinations. But we may well presume that each of the leading Churches--Antioch, Thessalonica, Alexandria, Corinth, Rome--sought by exchanging with other Christian communities to add to its special treasure, and have publicly read in its religious assemblies all Apostolic writings which came under its knowledge. It was doubtless in this way that the collections grew, and reached completeness within certain limits, but a considerable number of years must have elapsed (and that counting from the composition of the latest book) before all the widely separated Churches of early Christendom possessed the new sacred literature in full. And this want of an organized distribution, secondarily to the absence of an early fixation of the Canon, left room for variations and doubts which lasted far into the centuries. But evidence will presently be given that from days touching on those of the last Apostles there were two well defined bodies of sacred writings of the New Testament, which constituted the firm, irreducible, universal minimum, and the nucleus of its complete Canon: these were the Four Gospels, as the Church now has them, and thirteen Epistles of St. Paul--the Evangelium and the Apostolicum.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
_____________________________
As for the LXX, I am delighted to hear that you wholeheartedly accept it - especially from the perspective of its use of the word "KYRIOS." My defense of LXX is not from an ecclesiological perspective. It is from a theological perspective.
Thank you for the links. I will certainly check them out.
OZ,
Thanks for the link. Williamson, who thinks he is "more Catholic than the Pope," was already a schismatic and a member of the Society of St. Pius X started by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
But your point is well taken on how a religious group could ever aim at a "one world religion" when its members can't even agree among themselves.
Oz,
The following is from the National Catholic Register. Williamson isn't the only one Catholics have to worry about.
The Schism Nobody Sees Coming
by Pat Archbold 03/27/2015
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-schism-nobody-sees-coming/
______________________________
Susanna,
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." is totally out of context, it is about
the necessity of preachers to get out there to tell people of Jesus so they
can call on Him and be saved.
"the word of God" is back to the question of what it consists of, and the testimony of Scripture
is that the authoritative stuff came from AUDIBLE VOICE and VISIBLE VISIONS.
the audible voice of course includes Jesus' preaching and His hearers writing it down.
As for "Revelation is "received according to the mode of the receiver."" That is merely the
excuse to keep canonized various saints and allow devotions based on
their revelations, despite contradictions between them and suchlike. which you don't find between the writers of Scripture.
This is also a way to avoiding settling problems presenting by visionaries.
there were only two or three epistles and revelation called into question.
The testimony of Irenaeus c. AD 180 is that what we accept as authoritative
was considered authoritative in his day. The council merely settled
dispute and put teeth in rejection of some writings.
one big problem if there is ever to be a reunion between RC and Orthodoxy, is getting rid
of some of those RC saints and reinstating some RC dismissed.
9:19 PM
You are dismissed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11507200/Google
Could be important for you to know Christine (and for all of us to spot the problem) in reading material that is posted very often here.
anon 10:41
"Sorry
We cannot find the page you are looking for." Internet Archive doesn't have it either.
what was the article about?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11507200/Google-makes-people-think-they-are-smarter-than-they-are.html
this must be it, you cut off part of the URL.
google like yahoo or mozilla is a search engine that can get you
anything from garbage to good stuff. the trick is having prior information
to judge it by, and checking sources listed in the article.
if you are used to doing research in a library, then you can handle a search engine.
the internet is denounced now days in precisely the same terms that books
were 30 years ago, in my experience.
the people who couldn't answer why cloudy nights are warmer, are victims
of the inadequate education they got in 6th to 8th grade rather than victims of the Internet. The reason
why is simple: cloud cover retains heat. That's why deserts, especially
high desert, goes from 110 degrees in the shade around 12-2 pm (no cloud cover to block some sun) to below
zero by 4 am same day (no cloud cover at night).
I know a college graduate with a masters in psychology from UC San
Diego, who lost some toes to frostbite because he didn't know
this. and not only that, hot air rising and cold air falling was
something that had to be explained to him about how overhead heating and
coolling ducts can get colder quick but warm slow.
you and your reliance on sloppy "scientific" studies with a lot of
lack of background knowledge are dismissed.
As for myself, I've been IQ tested several ways and always come up
pretty smart. And I'm certainly savvy enough to not cut off a URL, and to
look for it by tweaking it, and failing that, go see what might be
similar enough to be what you are talking about.
Given your attitude this must be article. So my finding it despite the
mangled URL should tell you something.
Christine,
Re: "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." is totally out of context, .....
Looks pretty clear to me. On what authority are you making this claim?????
anon 10:18
"Re: "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God." is totally out of context, .....
Looks pretty clear to me. On what authority are you making this claim?????"
on the authority of Scripture itself. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD CONTEXT MEANS?
Romans 10:13-18 is the context
"13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?
17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
18 But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world."
all you had to do was open the Bible and read it yourself.
Yale university study.
Google 'makes people think they are smarter than they are'
Just for you the googler of all googlers.
I read the article. I guess you didn't read my answer. google for me is a quick way of
getting stuff I know about finding in one place a myriad of things and can
cut and paste quick bible verses without typing them all out.
please bear in mind that the criticism of the Internet IS IDENTICAL TO CRITICISM
THAT USED TO BE USED AGAINST BOOKS. even use same words, just change
"books" or "libraries" into "Internet" or "google" but the latter
will find you whole books or major excerpts free online.
The headline was enough.
It popped right up and if you were truly smart you would have gotten the drift.
But you never get the drift.
The self-righteousness in you does not see that you are not what you think you are.
Your posts are merely googled junk to clutter the issues brought up here.
Your cluttered head might be smart if you got smart and cleaned up your own mess before attempting to 'educate' others.
I won't be holding my breath for that one.
I think it is your self righteousness.
instead of playing games and thinking that makes you so smart, just say what
you have to say.
And I don't consider your kind of drift worth paying attention to. All you ended up doing was
posting a link to something stupid. and you look stupid and dishonest as
a result. If you can't use a library or the Internet right that isn't the
library or Internet's fault. garbage in, garbage out.
Post a Comment